[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 58 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1741-H1754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO RATE REGULATION OF BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS ACT
General Leave
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H.R. 2666.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaMalfa). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2666.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 0913
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2666) to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from
regulating the rates charged for broadband Internet access service,
with Mr. Duncan of Tennessee in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation
of Broadband Internet Access Act.
From the first indication that the Federal Communications Commission
intended to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a title II
service subject to utility regulation, the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology has made it a priority to ensure that the
FCC bureaucracy never has the authority to actually get in and
micromanage and regulate rates.
The Internet is a model of innovation, flourishing under decades of
light-touch or no-touch regulation. That is how it has flourished, Mr.
Chairman.
{time} 0915
In recent years, as the FCC has repeatedly attempted to regulate the
management of Internet traffic, the potential reach of those
regulations has grown, prompting concerns that the FCC would retreat to
the world of rate regulation that typified the monopoly telephone era.
Unfortunately, these fears proved well-founded when the FCC announced
in early 2015, Mr. Chairman, that it would reclassify the Internet as a
utility-style service as part of the newest net neutrality rules--rules
that are currently being challenged in the courts, I might add.
I would like to begin by addressing one of the most common attacks
against this legislation, Mr. Chairman: that we are attempting to
``gut'' the FCC's authority to implement net neutrality rules. That
simply is not the case.
We are supportive of clear, bright-line rules of the road for ISPs
and the way they treat Internet traffic. We are for that. In fact, last
year I released a discussion draft bill, along with Chairman Upton and
Senator Thune, that would codify those very rules.
What we don't support is the use of outdated, ill-suited regulations
to achieve those goals. This bill isn't intended to touch the net
neutrality rules, and, in fact, an amendment I offered up in committee
markup goes so far as to make an explicit exemption to ensure that the
bill would not impact the FCC's work to ban paid prioritization. What
this bill does is prohibit the FCC from regulating the amount charged
to a consumer by an ISP for the provision of broadband service, a fact
made clear by our definitions.
There is another objection, Mr. Chairman, we have heard repeatedly,
and that is that the FCC had chosen to forbear from several of the
provisions in title II and that the Chairman of the FCC had promised
not to regulate rates anyway, so this bill is really unnecessary.
Again, this is simply not the case. The FCC did forbear from various
sections of title II, but the authority to regulate rates through
enforcement was and is still very much on the table. In addition, while
Chairman Wheeler did promise before our subcommittee and multiple other
committees of the Congress that he would not regulate rates, there was
nothing to bind him or his successors to that commitment.
The need for the certainty of a statutory ban on rate regulation
became even clearer just a few weeks ago when the bill's sponsor,
Representative Kinzinger, actually asked the Chairman of the FCC,
Chairman Wheeler, whether he believed the FCC should have the authority
to regulate rates. Chairman Wheeler's response: ``Yes, sir.''
Given the philosophy of the Chairman himself, it is clearly more
pressing than ever that this bill becomes law. The FCC cannot and
should not be able to regulate the rates charged by ISPs to their
customers. This sort of regulatory overhang clouds the decisionmaking
of providers and dissuades them from offering innovative, pro-consumer
pricing plans and service offerings, lest the Commission come back
after the fact and penalize them.
Take T-Mobile's Binge On service as a prime example. Consumers are
able to access video offered by any participant in the program without
that data counting toward their monthly usage limits or charges. Edge
providers win because their content is viewed more often. The service
provider wins because they actually attract more customers. It is
called the marketplace. It is innovation in the marketplace responding
to what consumers want. Most importantly, consumers win because they
are able to access the desired content with no cost or penalty.
Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
Now, I am not here to advocate for one company over another, but this
is called innovation in the marketplace. This is what entrepreneurship
is all about. But, unfortunately, under the opaque rules of the FCC, T-
Mobile had no way of knowing whether this sort of Binge On pricing
scheme would violate the Commission's rules. They didn't know.
And while T-Mobile has taken this risk, many providers may now choose
not to do so, ultimately depriving customers of choices they otherwise
would have. You see, everybody is a little afraid, does this Chairman
or the next Chairman come back, after the fact, and say: Well, you
know, that is really not something we think is too dandy to do, so we
are going to penalize you. It is called after-the-fact regulation.
So, as an unfortunate corollary to this chapter of Internet history,
the same kind of flip-flop we are concerned we will see on rate
regulation is exactly what we have seen with respect to Binge On. You
see, Chairman Wheeler was ``okay with it'' until he decided maybe not.
As a former businessowner myself, I can tell you that you can't make
business additions based on a hope and a prayer of your regulator. I
was actually regulated by the FCC. I knew the rules. I followed them.
They were clear. They were bright-line.
In an incredibly innovative marketplace, which the Internet thrives
in, can you imagine having the lack of clarity and the ability to go
back after the fact and, in effect, rate regulate? This will stifle
competition, innovation, and consumer choice.
Finally, I would like to address charges that this bill would leave
customers helpless to overcharge, or worse, by ISPs. We would all share
that concern. We don't want that, and this bill provides protection.
The notion that the FCC, an agency that didn't have authority over
Internet service providers' rates until last year--until last year--is
the only line of defense between customers and fraud is, frankly,
silly. It is a silly claim.
Customers have gotten along just fine without the aid of the FCC
regulating rates; and this notion that the FCC is the only cop on the
beat for consumers would come as a surprise--a real surprise--to many
States attorneys general and consumer advocates
[[Page H1742]]
across the Nation. All those protections, and fraud, abuse still
prevail out there.
This bill is a carefully tailored piece of legislation that is
targeted at just one thing--one thing, Mr. Chairman--and that is
unnecessary bureaucratic, Washington-based rate regulation. We used the
most narrow definition, inserted rules of construction, and made
specific exemptions to the prohibition, all in an attempt to address
the concerns that were raised by the witnesses in our hearings that we
held, Mr. Chairman, Members at markup and others who participated in
the process.
We listened to all of those voices say: How do we make this right?
How do we make it narrow? How do we get at just the issue here of a
bureaucracy that wants to expand and grow and micromanage and rate
regulate?
We sought to prevent unintended consequences, unlike the FCC, who
crafted their rules to have the broadest and furthest reaching scope.
Imagine that, Mr. Chairman, from a bureaucracy that writes rules, that
they would write rules that are broadly written so they have more power
for themselves. In fact, many of the changes we made to the bill at
full committee markup were inspired by an amendment offered by
Representative Matsui of California. Drawing on her suggested changes,
we amended the bill to be a more targeted draft.
We also considered amendments by multiple other Members of Congress
but felt that they would not have resulted in the kind of prohibition
that this situation narrowly calls for, one that clearly prohibits all
flavors of ratemaking, not just before-the-fact tariffing where they
say you can charge $7, that is it--that would be tariffing before the
fact--but also after-the-fact regulation, where they come back, Mr.
Chairman, and say: Oh, by the way, whatever you were charging, we have
now kind of thought about that, and we think it was too much or too
little or whatever.
While I am disappointed that so many of my colleagues across the
aisle cannot support this bill, it wasn't for lack of trying. It wasn't
for lack of a hearings process or taking many of their suggestions to
heart and modifying our underlying text. I nonetheless, though,
strongly believe that this legislation is an essential step in
maintaining the robust and vibrant Internet ecosystem that drives our
economy, powers innovations, and prompts and promotes new jobs and
investment like no other service. The last thing we want to throw on
there is the cold water of Washington bureaucracy after-the-fact
regulation that will stifle competition and innovation that has so
benefited consumers in this great Internet economy in which we find
ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2666, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a bill that the majority has
titled the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act. It
sounds terrific.
On the surface, this bill appears to do what Democrats and
Republicans both support. We both support this. What we support is very
clear: preventing the FCC from setting the monthly rate that customers
pay for Internet access service. But in reality, this bill is about
undermining the FCC's authority to protect consumers and ensure a free
and open Internet for all.
I listened very carefully to the chairman, whom I respect, who is my
friend, talking about innovation, talking about the effect that that
has on so much that we do.
I represent the innovation capital of our country and the world,
Silicon Valley, so I think that I understand something about innovation
and the ingredients that make it work. As the ranking member of the
subcommittee, I have made it very clear that I do not support setting
rates for customers to pay on Internet access, nor do any of my
Democratic colleagues on the committee.
In fact--and the chairman left this out. The chairman left this out.
In fact, during the subcommittee and full committee markup of this
bill, I offered an airtight, one-page amendment, right here--right
here, one-page amendment--to codify that the FCC will permanently
forbear from setting the rates that customers pay for Internet access.
It is airtight. It is as clear as a bell, but it was rejected twice.
Now, why would the majority reject exactly what they say they are
seeking? It is a good question. It is a rhetorical question, but it
should be raised. I think it is because this bill is about more than
the FCC setting the rates that customers pay for Internet access.
The FCC is the cop on the beat in the communications marketplace.
That means the FCC has the responsibility to keep watch over the
companies that provide our cell phone, cable, and Internet services to
ensure that everyone is treated fairly.
I think, in the absence of the following, not one consumer
organization in the country supports the bill that is on the floor
because it is overly broad. The definition of rate regulation in this
bill leaves the door open for courts to strike down the FCC's authority
to protect consumers and act in the public interest if they interpret
any of its actions as impacting broadband Internet rates. That is what
this bill does. That is what we object to. We do not object to,
essentially, what the title of the bill is, No Rate Regulation of
Broadband Internet Access.
These protections include prohibiting Internet service providers,
ISPs, from capping the amount of data that customers can use; outlawing
pay-for-privacy agreements where consumers have to pay fees to avoid
having their data collected and sold to third parties; enforcing net
neutrality rules against blocking Web sites; and reviewing mergers that
increase consolidation and limit choice in the broadband Internet
market.
As I said a moment ago, it is no wonder this bill is opposed by over
70 public interest groups, including the National Hispanic Media
Coalition, the Consumer Federation of America, and the National
Consumer Law Center. And the White House has said that it will veto the
bill.
We could have come here with a very simple bill that essentially is
what my amendment stated: no rate regulation. That is what the majority
says that they are for, except the bill goes way beyond that.
I want to make it clear to my colleagues and to the American people
that may be tuned in to this debate: This bill, in its broadness, is an
attack on consumers and an attack on the FCC's net neutrality rules.
Now, that is not a surprise because the majority has never supported
that. And that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2666.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record three letters from consumer
organizations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
April 12, 2016.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker,
House of Representatives.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader,
House of Representatives.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: We understand that
floor consideration of H.R. 2666, the ``No Rate Regulation of
Broadband Internet Access Act,'' is expected following a
meeting of the House Committee on Rules this week.
The undersigned groups strongly urge you and your
colleagues to vote against H.R. 2666, because it would block
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from fulfilling
its essential consumer-protection responsibilities. This
would be disastrous for all of the people and businesses in
America that use the Internet. Simply, H.R. 2666 would
prevent the FCC from doing its job to protect the American
people.
H.R. 2666's overly broad definitions and undefined language
would create extreme regulatory uncertainty. It would
hamstring the FCC's ability to carry out its congressionally-
mandated responsibilities. The impacts of this legislation
are wide-ranging and difficult to fully enumerate, given the
broad definitions of ``rates'' and ``regulation'' in the
bill, which conflict with legal precedent. Yet several
harmful impacts are readily apparent.
First, it is clear that the bill is yet another attempt to
undermine the FCC's Open Internet Order and the principles of
net neutrality. The Order ``expressly eschew[ed] the future
use of prescriptive, industry-wide rate regulation'' and the
FCC forbore from the legal authorities that enable it to set
rates.
Although the FCC is not setting rates, stripping away its
authority to review monopoly charges and other unjust and
unreasonable business practices would harm everyone. It would
especially harm the families and small businesses that rely
on an affordable and open Internet to find jobs, do
schoolwork, or reach consumers to compete in the 21st century
global marketplace.
[[Page H1743]]
This legislation threatens the FCC's ability to enforce
merger conditions that provide low-cost broadband to
disadvantaged communities, harming low-income Americans who
already have limited broadband access, and further widening
the digital divide.
It would give a free ride to companies currently imposing
punitive data caps and introducing zero-rating schemes, which
the FCC has rightly questioned and continues to investigate.
And despite the bill's imprecise references to
interconnection and paid prioritization, it would leave open
the very real possibility that these companies may try to
extort and extract additional payments from websites and
applications to reach their customers--even though the
ability to download and upload the content of their choosing
is exactly what broadband customers pay for.
By using the term interconnection in an undefined manner,
H.R. 2666 also creates significant uncertainty about what, if
anything, the FCC can do to protect the public from
interconnection-related harms. Congestion at interconnection
points--locations where the Internet's backbone
infrastructure connects to last-mile providers such as
Comcast and AT&T--has hurt consumers and online businesses in
recent years, and this bill would leave the public vulnerable
to those harms.
Lastly, the legislation would undermine the FCC's efforts
to protect consumer privacy, including oversight of so-called
``pay-for-privacy'' plans that require customers to pay
significant additional fees to their broadband provider to
avoid having their online data collected and sold to third
parties.
In sum, the broad definition of ``regulation'' in H.R. 2666
would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the FCC to
review and then prohibit even clearly anti-competitive and
anti-consumer actions by broadband companies. Under the bill,
broadband providers could characterize any and every rule or
determination the FCC makes as a ``rate regulation'' if it
prevents these ISPs from charging abusive penalties or tolls.
Over four million Americans called for the FCC to protect
an open Internet. It is time for members of Congress to stop
sneak attacks that would allow big cable companies to break
net neutrality rules without consequences. We strongly
believe that the limited and inadequate exemptions in the
current bill are neither credible nor sufficient. These
limited exceptions for a small number of regulatory issues
are not enough, as they simply create opportunities for
companies to circumvent them.
Congress has made the FCC the guardian of the public
interest. The Commission must be able to protect America's
Internet users from unreasonable business practices.
It is unfortunate that the Energy & Commerce Committee
Majority twice rejected proposed compromises that would have
been harmonious with the FCC's decision not to set broadband
rates, while ensuring the Commission still had the ability to
protect consumers. Instead, this bill is little more than a
wolf in sheep's clothing that would reduce the FCC's
oversight abilities and strip away communications rights for
hundreds of millions of Americans.
We respectfully urge you to vote against this bill to show
your support for America's consumers and businesses that need
the free and open Internet.
Sincerely,
18MillionRising.org, Alternate ROOTS, Arts & Democracy,
Center for Media Justice (CMJ), Center for Rural Strategies,
Cogent Communications, Inc., Color Of Change, Common Cause,
Common Frequency, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of
America, Consumer Watchdog, Daily Kos, Demand Progress,
Engine, Faithful Internet, Families for Freedom, Fight for
the Future, Free Press Action Fund, FREE! Families Rally for
Emancipation and Empowerment.
Future of Music Coalition, Generation Justice, Global
Action Project (GAP.), Greenlining Institute, Human Rights
Defense Center, Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de
California (IDEPSCA), Line Break Media, Martinez Street
Women's Center, Media Action Center, Media Mobilizing
Project, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-
income clients, National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), New
America's Open Technology Institute, Ohio Valley
Environmental Coalition, Open Access Connections, People's
Press Project, PhillyCAM, Progressive Technology Project,
Prometheus Radio Project, Public Knowledge.
School for Designing a Society, St. Paul Neighborhood
Network (SPNN), TURN, United Church of Christ, OC Inc.,
Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, Voices for Racial
Justice, Women Action Media, Working Films, Working
Narratives, Writers Guild of America, West.
____
Consumer Union,
Washington, DC, April 14, 2016.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker,
House of Representatives.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader,
House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Madam Leader: Consumers Union, the
policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, urges the
House not to approve H.R. 2666, the ``No Rate Regulation of
Broadband Internet Access Act.'' We believe this legislation
is unnecessary, and we are concerned that it would undermine
the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rule
and other important responsibilities of the Commission in
protecting consumers and competition in the broadband
marketplace.
We share the concerns voiced during the bill's
consideration in Committee, that ``rate'' and ``rate
regulation'' could be interpreted to interfere on a broad
scale with the Commission's authority to prevent all manner
of discriminatory treatment simply because there is some
direct or indirect price-related manifestation or effect.
Indeed, the Committee states in its report that the term
``rates'' should ``be interpreted broadly, extending beyond a
simple price to any provider-offered fee, rate level, rate
structure, discount, incentive, or similar customer-facing
proposal.'' We are concerned that, other than outright denial
of service or interconnection, anticompetitive discrimination
would most likely take the form of some kind of price
differential--including data caps, throttling,
anticompetitive subsidies, and paid prioritization, just to
name some of the most obvious.
Moreover, there is no indication that the Commission has
any intent to regulate rates for broadband service, now or in
the future, or that it has seriously entertained the
possibility of doing so. Indeed, the Open Internet Order
explicitly disclaims such intent. This bill is a flawed and
harmful solution to a non-existent and wholly theoretical
problem.
The Open Internet Order is key to ensuring that the
benefits of the Internet are widely available--that everyone
has access to it on equal, nondiscriminatory terms. We hope
the House will allow the Commission to appropriately enforce
the Open Internet Order, without injecting new and
unnecessary uncertainty into the scope of its authority. We
urge that H.R. 2666 be defeated.
Respectfully,
George P. Slover,
Senior Policy Counsel,
Consumers Union.
____
Computer & Communications
Industry Association,
Washington, DC, April 14, 2016.
Re CCIA Letter on H.R. 2666--No Rate Regulation of Broadband
Internet Access Act.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Minority Leader Pelosi: As you know, an open Internet
has been a driving force of economic growth, innovation, and
a key to American competitiveness. It is a crucial input for
businesses large and small, and an essential component of the
lives of everyday Americans for expression, education, and
work.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of
Broadband Internet Access Act, threatens the FCC's ability to
enforce sensible rules to ensure the Internet remains
competitive and open. As you consider this legislation this
week, I hope you will take into account the negative
consequences this bill would have for consumers and
businesses that rely on Internet access.
Despite the bill's title, H.R. 2666 goes far beyond rate
regulation. A closer look will not just reveal the potential
for higher costs to consumers and businesses, but also
significant regulatory uncertainty. Of considerable concern
are the bill's intentionally broad definitions. For example,
the bill's definitions of ``regulation'' and ``regulate''
include the Commission's enforcement authority. This would
prevent the Commission from pursuing its longstanding
Congressional mandates of promoting competition and consumer
protection. Without such authority, the FCC would not be able
to review and prohibit anti-competitive actions that could
hurt consumers and businesses.
During consideration by the Energy & Commerce Committee,
Democratic Members sought to find common ground with
amendments that would more clearly define what the bill seeks
to prevent--ratemaking for broadband. However, these efforts
were rejected on party-line votes. The bill's ambiguity
remains a significant concern for businesses and will impair
the FCC's obligation to ensure that basic rules of the road
will protect the openness that has made the Internet so
useful. I urge you to consider the effects on the open
Internet and vote against H.R. 2666.
Sincerely,
Ed Black,
President & CEO, Computer & Communications Industry
Association.
{time} 0930
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). She is the vice chairman of the full Energy
and Commerce Committee and a very important member of our subcommittee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come to
the floor today and stand in support of this bill. It is the right
step.
The gentlewoman from California references the amendment that she had
wanted, but her amendment was not exactly what that bill is.
[[Page H1744]]
What we are seeking to do is to encourage the FCC to make good on the
promise that they have made. In March 2015, Chairman Wheeler was
speaking at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
He was talking about net neutrality and rules and regulations. He
said:
This is not regulating the Internet. Regulating the
Internet is rate regulation, which we don't do.
Whoops, they do. That is what they are trying to do.
Now, there is a difference in what the gentlewoman was seeking to do
in committee, not have tariffs or regulation. But if they had gone
ahead and done it, then we would have to get into a process of trying
to undo. That is what people don't like. They don't like that kind of
mess.
What they want is something very explicit. That is what Mr.
Kinzinger's bill does. It very explicitly says: FCC, you cannot, you
shall not, and you will not do rate regulation. It is not what the
American people want to see. It is what the FCC has promised they will
not do.
So what we are doing is helping a federal agency keep their word,
keep their promise, and not get into rate regulation. Of course, we all
know that what they would like to do is regulate the Internet so they
can tax the Internet, so they can then come in and set all the rates,
and so they can then come in and assign priority and value to content.
It is a commerce issue, it is a free speech issue, and it is an issue
for the American people who want to make certain that the information
service they have known, appreciated, and utilize every day in the
virtual marketplace is not going to be regulated by a Federal
Government agency.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would note that the FCC chairman is not a
Member of Congress. It is only Congress that can write a statute. The
amendment that I offered codified--codified--that there would be no
rate regulation of the Internet.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from
California, the ranking member of our subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a deceptively simple bill,
H.R. 2666. The bill states that the FCC may not regulate rates for
broadband Internet access service, but I urge Members on both sides of
the aisle to not fall for this rhetoric and misinformation.
Just because this bill is short in length does not mean it is narrow
in scope. It is designed to gut the FCC because, as experts have
pointed out, the definitions in the bill for rate regulation could mean
almost anything.
While the Republicans claim that they intend the bill to be narrow,
we have heard over and over that their draft would swallow vast
sections of the Communications Act. Most notably, this bill could
undermine the FCC's ability to protect consumers.
Democrats repeatedly offered help to improve this bill. But make no
mistake, there was not a negotiation. We offered suggestions, but were
rebuffed time and again. In fact, we raised concerns from the beginning
that the original bill failed to define rate regulation.
Then, at the eleventh hour, the Republicans provided their own take-
it-or-leave-it definition with no Democratic input. This is not
negotiating.
The result of this one-sided conversation is the definition of rate
regulation that simply confirms our worst fears. The definition is so
broad that it effectively would gut the agency.
Now, we have said repeatedly that we do not want the FCC to set
rates. But we can't support a bill that undermines the FCC's core
mission. We can't support a bill that prevents the agency from acting
in the interest of the public.
We can't support a bill that prevents the agency from protecting
consumers from discriminatory practices, and we certainly cannot
support a bill that undercuts the FCC's net neutrality rules. The
Republicans rebuffed all of our efforts to narrow H.R. 2666 so that
consumers are not harmed.
If we are at all serious about passing a narrow bill, then
accomplishing these goals would not be that hard. Our collective
interests should be aligned. But that clearly is not the intent of my
Republican colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to cast a vote against H.R. 2666.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side
has remaining?
The CHAIR. The majority has 19 minutes remaining. The minority has
22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger). He is the author of this legislation and is a
very serious member of the Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology and a great patriot for this country.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee, and I
thank the other side of the aisle. Even though this is something that
we are going to put through and we would love to have a lot more
support from the other side of the aisle, we do appreciate the working
relationship.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this is, in my mind, very simple.
When the FCC, in essence, chose to reclassify broadband Internet access
service as a common carrier, that gave them the classification and the
ability to regulate rates of private companies.
Understanding this, it was the concern, as we looked around, that we
want to make sure that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the
rates charged for Internet access.
If you look back in the history of this country and, really, what
technology and what the Internet has been able to do for jobs, for
economic growth, and for everything along that line, it has all been
because it is free of government regulation. So let's just put this
into law, that the FCC shouldn't have the authority.
In a couple of hearings, Chairman Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC,
was asked: Do you believe you should have the right or the ability to
regulate the rates charged for Internet, for broadband access?
He said: No. I forbear that.
In fact, I asked the chairman: What if we put into law a simple
statement that said that the FCC shouldn't have that authority?
Amen, basically, is what he said.
Now, over the next year, we have run into some more issues. All of a
sudden 3 weeks ago I asked the chairman the same question again, and he
admits that, actually, the FCC should have the ability to regulate
broadband Internet access.
This is Congress simply doing its job. Congress' job is to determine
what authority the FCC should and should not have. That is what we were
invented for. That is what we were created for, to determine those laws
and those rules.
All we are doing is taking back a little bit of power from the FCC
and saying: Look, let's keep the Internet free market. Let's keep
broadband free market.
Congress is going to have its say in this. I hope the other side of
the aisle and my colleagues join me in supporting this measure.
It is the right thing for our country, and it is a great first step
in preserving the Internet as free for future generations.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth). He is an outstanding member of
the committee.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as I said on Wednesday during debate on the rule, the
bill before us today is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent
problem.
While we all share concerns about the idea of broadband Internet rate
regulation, Chairman Wheeler has made it absolutely clear that the FCC
will not seek to regulate those rates.
But since this bill is before the House anyway, I thought I would
offer an amendment that would address an actual problem that can be
fixed by the FCC.
Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934 requires broadcasters
to disclose the true identity of political advertising sponsors.
The FCC currently relies on an outdated 1979 staff interpretation of
the law that does not account for the dramatic changes that have taken
place in our campaign system over the last 6 years, including the
Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions. The rule
[[Page H1745]]
makes sense. The American people ought to know who is actually trying
to influence their votes.
Unfortunately, sponsors in today's world don't indicate who is
actually paying for the ad. No. We get sponsors like Americans for
Kittens and Puppies. That is not very helpful in disclosing to the
American people who is trying to influence them.
It would be, for instance, if somebody ran an ad promoting sugared
soft drinks and, instead of Coca-Cola or Pepsi being the actual people
paying for the ad, you would have the advertising agency: This ad is
sponsored by Ogilvy & Mather or McCann Erickson. That is not very
helpful to the American people.
So this has resulted in a major loophole in which special interests
and wealthy donors can anonymously spend limitless amounts of money to
influence the outcomes of our elections. That is not what Congress
intended.
Despite having the authority to do so, the FCC has refused to take
action to close this loophole. My amendment, by restating the original
constitutional intent, would have sent a message to the FCC that it is
time to act.
We all know how much secret money has flooded our politics, weakened
accountability in government, and made it harder for voters to develop
a true opinion of the individuals they will send to Congress to
represent them.
My amendment would have helped to change that and, hopefully, would
have begun to restore a minimum level of honesty in our electoral
system.
The amendment was germane within the rules of this body, and the
solution it provided was well within the authority of the FCC.
Most importantly, an overwhelming majority of Americans--Republicans,
Democrats, and Independents--want us to do this. They want us to reform
and fix our broken campaign finance system.
Unfortunately, Republicans on the Rules Committee voted against the
interests of a majority of Americans and blocked my amendment from
coming to the floor.
While they killed my amendment, I am glad the amendment offered by my
colleague, Mr. Lujan, will be up for consideration today.
It will give us a chance to debate the lack of disclosure and
transparency in campaign ads. Unlike the underlying bill, it offers a
specific solution to a real problem.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Lance), another terrific member of our Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Communications and
Technology Subcommittee, I rise in strong support of Mr. Kinzinger's
bill.
The Internet has dramatically changed the global economy and how
every one of us lives daily life. It is the great equalizer, providing
an open platform to boost innovation and job creation, expand
expression and free speech, as much as any invention in history.
But some unelected officials here in Washington are eager to regulate
it, and some in office across the country are eager to tax it. We must
prevent both.
The prosperity and opportunity we have come to know from the Internet
will be compromised if Internet access becomes another victim of an
overweening governmental agency.
The apps on your mobile phone and for your online accounts, your
social sphere and your personal and professional information come not
from the permission of unelected officials, but from the work of
innovators who have invented this 21st century technology.
They must remain empowered to continue their innovation. We cannot
allow the government a foothold for Internet control.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2666.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a wonderful and important member of the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member on the
Communications and Technology Subcommittee and the chair of the
Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
There are two questions here. First is net neutrality. One of the
biggest decisions that the FCC made was to protect net neutrality.
Before they issued their order, they had literally millions of
comments from people all across this country, in your district and in
mine, urging that net neutrality be maintained and preserved. The
chairman and the FCC did that with their order.
Now, that has raised some questions as to whether the assertion of
FCC authority is going to result in micromanaging through regulation,
and that would be a legitimate concern if it were a concern.
But the chairman has made it extremely clear that he has no intention
whatsoever of doing any kind of rate regulation under title II. He is
not going to do it. It hasn't been done.
So this bill, which is going to ``prohibit rate regulation'' has some
significant and potentially very dangerous consequences for two things,
net neutrality and protection of consumers.
We need an FCC that is going to be there to protect consumers against
some potentially bad practices, like cramming or overbilling, things
that traditionally the FCC has done as the agency that is protecting
consumers against bad practices.
{time} 0945
The reason why many experts believe that this bill would result in
that happening is because there is no definition of rate regulation.
There is none. The burden on legislators, when we propose something, is
to be clear and specific as to what it is that is being proposed. There
is no definition whatsoever in this bill about rate regulation. This
bill is founded on an apprehension that something bad will happen, but
it gives an undefined answer to prevent an undefined event from
happening. So the effect here is that you have a bill that is playing
on the fear of the unknown.
My preference would be for us to not pass this bill, not endanger the
authority of the FCC to take steps that help consumers in your district
and in my district, and to focus where we should be focusing, in my
view, on steps that we can take to improve broadband access in speeds,
particularly for rural areas, rural Vermonters. There is a common goal
that we have in our committee to try to get the broadband out and
deployed at higher speeds in all of our areas, particularly the rural
areas that are in jeopardy.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to point out for the Record that on page 4 of the
bill, H.R. 2666, on line 7, there is a definition of broadband Internet
access service. We also have the definition of rate; we have the
definition of regulation all spelled out in the bill. And very specific
to the issue of cramming and illegal actions on truth-in-billing and
all, those are also called for in the bill.
He may be looking at an old draft of the bill or something, but it is
not the legislation before us. We do define what rate regulation is. We
do make sure that the FCC continues to enforce subpart Y, part 64,
title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, relating to truth-in-
billing requirements. That is lines 18 through 20 of the bill. So those
things actually were addressed in the legislation that is now before
the House.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, it actually was great to follow my colleague
from Vermont, who is a thoughtful individual, who always raises good
questions, who really is open to debate, and he stumbles onto the truth
in this.
This does have an issue of net neutrality. Our problem has always
been, we now have a Federal agency imposing what there was no need or
desire, by many of us, to fix. So now we are trying to make sure that
this Federal agency doesn't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
There is a fear. He was correct in also saying there was a fear.
So how do you ease that fear?
You enshrine into law the promises made by the administration and by
the Chairman of the FCC. You take away the fear. It is not like, well,
maybe this is what he said, but maybe he will do
[[Page H1746]]
this. Just codify it. Then we know what the law is. Then everyone who
brings it into litigation can say, well, here is the black and white
law. Of course, we also have trouble with the courts. We would hope
that the courts would read the black and white language of the law and
then rule that way.
All we are trying to do is trust, but verify. What we see is that the
net neutrality debate was a fix seeking a problem, which there was no
problem. No one can stand on our side today and say we have not
advanced greatly by this new technological age and that we need more
government to help cause it to flourish more.
We are afraid of a Federal agency. We are afraid that the FCC has
gone too far. We need to enshrine this into law. Everybody knows the
ground rules. That is all my colleague, Mr. Kinzinger, is trying to do.
I would ask my colleagues to support it.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, may I get an update on the time remaining on
each side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 13 minutes remaining. The
gentlewoman from California has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who has an incredible
background in rate regulation and the commission there and is a
terrific member of our subcommittee.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chair, as the chairman said, I served nearly 10 years
as a title II rate regulator on the North Dakota Public Service
Commission, and I know what title II rate regulation looks like. The
Internet is not an appropriate vehicle or medium for this type of
regulation. The Internet is not a monopoly railroad, the Internet is
not a monopoly telephone company, it is not a monopoly electric or gas
utility. The Internet is a dynamic, competitive innovator. Even the
threat of this type of regulation stifles that innovation, and we do
not want that to happen.
I want to address the amendment that was referred to by the ranking
member of the subcommittee, who I have great respect for. She referred
to the term ``permanent forbearance.'' That is a contradiction in
terms. Forbearance is, by definition, temporary. He who has the
authority to forebear has the authority to unforebear. That is exactly
what her amendment did. That is why it was not adequate to this bill.
This legislation simply codifies that which the President of the
United States and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
promised: to not regulate rates. If they promised to do it, God bless
them. But we don't know that the next Chairman and the next President
will live up to that promise. This law ensures that that promise is
kept by codifying it.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader of the
United States House of Representatives.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, the biggest goal of the innovation initiative is to bring
government into the modern age, making the policies that come out of
Washington reflect and adapt to the world today.
What has shaped our world more in the 21st century than the Internet?
Education, commerce, communication, information. Everything in our
lives has changed because of the Internet.
How did the Internet become something so important, so useful, and so
widespread?
Government left it alone. It expanded to reach and help billions
because bureaucrats weren't allowed to micromanage it.
I remember hearing this from AOL founder Steve Case. It was back in
1985. He said only 3 percent of people were online for an average of
just 1 hour a week. Today, the Internet has reached about 40 percent of
the world. That is an amazing growth.
Unfortunately, the freedom that led to this amazing success is at
risk. Right now, it is an open question whether the FCC can regulate
Internet rates. Congress needs to clarify that it has no authority to
do so.
If the FCC were to regulate rates, it could harm every American
across the country that has a Wi-Fi connection by imposing artificial
restraints on their plans and service options, it would stop needed
investment in expanding and improving the Internet, and it would block
innovation that we depend on to create better and faster Internet.
Regulating rates means its bureaucrats think that they can manage the
Internet better than the private sector, which has already brought fast
and affordable connections to millions across the country.
I know the FCC and President Obama promised they wouldn't regulate
broadband Internet rates from their offices in Washington, and that is
a good thing. But that doesn't mean I am not concerned. I don't know
about you, Mr. Chair, but after 7 years of broken promises, I have a
hard time trusting this administration will follow through.
So today we are voting to hold the administration to its word. They
promised not to regulate rates. This legislation bars the FCC from
regulating rates. It is as simple as that. I can't imagine why anyone
would object.
I want to thank Congressman Kinzinger for his work on this
legislation, holding the FCC and the Obama administration accountable.
The innovation initiative is all about giving the American people the
freedom to grow and prosper. With this, the Internet stays a little
freer, executive overreach is held back, and we leave space for the
people to innovate without the Federal Government trying to control it
all.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Long), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee
on Communications and Technology.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, you don't need a Ph.D. from MIT to understand what is
going on here. Despite President Obama and Federal Communications
Commission Chairman Wheeler's past promises not to regulate the retail
rates of Internet service providers, the Chairman announced last week
that the FCC will start a new regulatory framework for the evolving
business data market, and told other House Energy and Commerce
Committee members and me last month that the FCC should have the
authority to regulate broadband rates.
Today, services provided over modern high-speed broadband facilities
to customers are unregulated. It is a vibrant market where broadband
companies compete vigorously for customers.
If the administration gets in their way, the FCC will reverse course,
price regulate business services, and create disincentives for further
investment and deployment of high-speed fiber networks throughout the
Nation. These burdens would harm investments, stifle innovation, and
cost tens of thousands of jobs.
Mr. Chair, our economy and American workers cannot afford this
impact. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this crucial bill.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), another member of the Republican leadership,
who is also a really important member of our committee and
subcommittee.
Mr. SCALISE. I thank Chairman Walden, and I want to thank my
colleague, Congressman Kinzinger, for his leadership on bringing this
bill to the floor.
Mr. Chair, what we are trying to do here is to continue to allow the
great innovation that we have seen from the technology industry. It has
happened not because government has sat there and regulated every
aspect of what they do. It is because government, frankly, hasn't
figured out how to regulate them because the industry moves so fast. I
think that has been a good thing.
It has shown that if you allow an industry to go out there and invest
private money in creating great new technologies, great new products,
and you look at the development and deployment of broadband, it is
literally changing people's lives for the good. It
[[Page H1747]]
has allowed America to be such a great technological leader.
But then when you see the threat of the FCC setting rates, regulating
broadband, it will send a chilling effect that will not only kill that
investment and slow down the ability and the growth that we have seen
that has been so revolutionary in this country, but it will kill jobs
in this country.
We need to stop the threat of the FCC being able to set rates in a
way that can slow down that growth. We have seen such tremendous growth
in the technology industry by the government not being in this arena.
What Congressman Kinzinger is doing with this bill protects taxpayers
and protects the growth and innovation that we need in this country.
I urge adoption of the bill.
{time} 1000
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), another great member of our committee.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2666, the No
Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act, which will prohibit
the FCC from regulating the rates charged for broadband Internet access
service.
This bill will help prevent further FCC overreach, save tens of
thousands of jobs, keep rates affordable for consumers, and provide
certainty for the future of broadband regulation.
For the last year and a half, the FCC has insisted it would not
regulate broadband Internet rates. That changed last month when
Chairman Wheeler reversed course and contradicted all previous
testimony on the FCC's intent to regulate rates.
Many of our local businesses and organizations would suffer from
further FCC overreach. Many already suffer from the uncertainty and
vague new legal standards that have been imposed by the FCC. Regulating
rates before and even after they are issued would further infuse the
worst government meddling into a market that should remain nimble and
competitive.
I thank Congressman Kinzinger for his excellent and timely work on
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2666.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter), a gentleman who cares deeply about this issue.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2666.
In 2015, the FCC reclassified Internet service providers as title II
common carriers, giving themselves the ability to regulate Internet
rates and user privacy. The administration has promised that this new
agency power will not be used to regulate broadband rates; however, FCC
Chairman Tom Wheeler has admitted that the FCC should have the
authority to do so. This regulatory uncertainty is why this bill is
needed.
H.R. 2666 would prohibit the FCC from regulating rates charged for
broadband Internet access and would hold the administration to the
promise it made to American consumers. Preventing government
interference with broadband retail rates would give smaller providers
greater confidence when making investments, particularly those that
would increase Internet access in rural and small communities.
I urge my colleagues to help prevent the government micromanagement
of Internet access by supporting H.R. 2666.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Clarke), an important member of the committee.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. I thank our ranking member, Ms. Eshoo, and
the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of
Broadband Internet Access Act, which would prohibit the FCC from
regulating rates for broadband Internet access.
I agree with the premise behind the bill. The Commission should not
be setting rates for broadband access. In fact, we have heard from FCC
Chairman Wheeler. He has stated several times that he does not intend
to set rates.
Like millions of Americans who made their voices heard last year, I
support a free and open Internet. I do not believe the FCC needs to get
into the business of regulating consumer broadband rates. H.R. 2666,
however, is overbroad and far-reaching. The unintended consequences of
the bill before us would undermine important consumer protections and
would threaten a free and open Internet.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill before us
today.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The gentleman from Oregon
has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 15\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the chairman for his work on this important bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation
of Broadband Internet Access Act.
The bill does just that--prohibits the Federal Communications
Commission from unnecessarily regulating broadband rates. This
legislation ensures that not only the current Commission but future
Commissions will not have the option to regulate broadband Internet
rates, which will protect the free market, encourage competition, and
promote jobs; and that is what we need to be all about.
Plain and simple, unelected Washington bureaucrats at the FCC have
set out with another solution in search of a problem. By shifting the
classification of broadband Internet to be a title II common carrier,
the FCC is, simply, reclassifying broadband Internet to fall under
their rulemaking purview.
This is nothing more than another power grab by the administration to
regulate and control yet another industry. It is estimated that, if
rules regulating broadband services are carried out, it could cost over
43,000 jobs, and I think we can all agree that it is not time to gamble
with American jobs. When bureaucrats in Washington play the regulation
game, no one wins.
I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2666, and I encourage my colleagues to
join me in support of this legislation.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
am prepared to close.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting discussion on the floor
this morning. For people who are tuned in, I think that I want to stay
away from Federal talk, telecommunications talk, governmentese.
What this debate is all about is the Internet. There is a clear
difference between how the Democrats view the Internet and how to
protect its openness and its accessibility, and that rests in net
neutrality--not a very sexy term. What it means is that no ISP can get
in the way of the consumer. All you have to do is look in your purse or
in your pocket. What you take out and the content that you view and
whatever the Internet carries, no company can get in the way of that--
to chop it up, to slow it down, to speed it up, to charge more.
Now, our Republican colleagues have fought mightily, and I salute
them with their mightily launched campaign in that they don't believe
in that, and that is really what is underneath this. They talk about
Federal bureaucracies. They don't like that. They talk about
bureaucrats. They don't like them. They talk about the President. They
don't like him.
What is at the heart of all of this is that we believe in that open,
accessible Internet. We do not believe that the executive branch--in
this case, the FCC--should be able to regulate broadband rates. We have
said so. We have said so time and again.
The gentleman from North Dakota objected to my amendment. He said
that it was an oxymoron. Our amendment codified. No one else codified.
We offered codification in the law that not only this FCC Commission
but all future Commissions--all future Chairmen--could not exact rate
regulation. I don't know what needs to be done in order to get to
``yes'' around here, and it is curious to me that all of the speakers
on the other side never referenced what we put on the table--that there
is agreement.
Really, this bill goes beyond that, and that is what we object to.
There is
[[Page H1748]]
not one consumer organization in our country that supports what the
majority is doing. We stand with consumers. They need a cop on the
beat--we don't need the rate regulation of broadband by the FCC--just
the way other agencies are supposed to look after the best interests of
the American people. In fact, in the Communications Act, the public
interest is stated over 100 times. We believe in that. The majority has
gone too far with this bill. It can hurt small businesses, and it will
hurt consumers. That is where we draw the line.
Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on H.R. 2666. It goes too far. We were willing to meet and join
hands and have something sail through the House--and I think it would
have in the other body as well--and that is that there be no rate
regulation of broadband Internet. I don't know. Maybe the majority was
shocked that we agreed with their talking point. We are serious about
it. We offered a solution to it that was rejected not once but twice.
Very disappointing. For all of these reasons and with what my
colleagues stated on this side in the magnificent statements that they
made, I urge the House to reject this legislation because it goes well
beyond its stated intent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do appreciate the comments by my friend, and I consider her a good
friend. We have worked together on a lot of issues successfully and
have found common ground time and time again. Then there are days like
today when we just see things differently and, perhaps, read them
differently. That is what democracy is, after all, all about: competing
ideas that come to an open marketplace where we can have an up-or-down
vote by the people's Representatives.
Let me talk about a couple of things, Mr. Chair.
First of all, there is the issue of net neutrality, itself. As my
friend from California knows, I put together a draft bill in January of
2015--nearly a year and a half ago now. That bill read: no blocking, no
paid prioritization, no throttling, and it required transparency, which
are the core principles of an open Internet order. My colleagues on
this side of the aisle are for all of those things. The door remains
open for Democrats to join us in sponsoring that legislation. We looked
forward to that, hopefully, in going forward, but we couldn't reach
agreement on those very clear positions.
My colleague said, Gee, they are for not having the Federal
Communications Commission regulate rates for broadband Internet access
service. I think that is an accurate description of what the
gentlewoman said she was for. Let me go to page 3 of the bill and just,
simply, read from line 6, section 2: ``Regulation of broadband rates
prohibited.'' Line 7: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Federal Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged
for broadband Internet access service.'' That is what this bill does.
Now, here is where people may get a little confused because, on the
one hand, we say no tariffing. That means no setting of the rates ahead
of time. We agree that that is a bad idea. You have heard that from
both sides of the aisle here. Yet, you see, the door that remains
cracked open is the one they refuse to close; so the chilling winter
air of regulatory overreach blows through that crack in the door
because, if you don't close the ability of the agency to come in after
the fact and say ``what you did on your rates we no longer think is
correct,'' then you have after-the-fact rate regulation, which is even
more uncertain than up-front tariffing, than an up-front setting of the
rates. It is with this that we find ourselves in disagreement with my
friends across the aisle. You see, they are willing to say no tariffing
in advance, but they are not willing to close the door that allows the
chilly air that will freeze out innovation--a post-action regulation--
from occurring.
Having been in small business for 20-plus years earlier in my life
and in the radio business, I know what regulation is. I know how to
follow them. I know what a public file is. I actually kept them and did
all of these things in our little radio station; but I cannot imagine
if, after the fact, my regulator could come back and say: Do you know
those ads you sold to the local car dealer? Even though they were
printed on your rate card and they were publicly disclosed and all of
that, we think, maybe, that was a little too high.
{time} 1015
So you have to go back and you have to change things. There is no
definition of how far back they could go. Could they go back 6 months?
A year? 2 years? 10 years? I don't know.
See, I guess you get to the point that the Internet thrives today in
an environment where it was never regulated. That is what really made
it go off the charts, is the innovators in Silicon Valley and I daresay
in my district, in Oregon, and elsewhere, all over the world literally.
There is no central-only point of innovation when it comes to the
Internet and technology. It is global.
The economy has flourished globally and has done all that without
three Commissioners--or two Commissioners and one Chairman, three
people in America deciding what you can and can't do.
You have got to go: Mama, can I? Daddy, can I? Can I after the fact?
Is it going to be okay? This is the new environment when you treat the
Internet like an old, black, dial-up phone.
Fundamentally, that is what Chairman Wheeler decided to do with
pressure from the White House. They lost their independence as an
agency when they went down this path to say that the Internet is now
like an old phone line. Or, as you heard the former member of the
Public Utility Commission from North Dakota, my friend, Mr. Cramer, who
was in the rate regulation business, say, the Internet, it is not
appropriate to regulate it as an old common carrier, an old railroad
system that is a monopoly because the Internet is not a monopoly. We
want innovation for consumers. We want the competition in the
marketplace that we know drives down prices.
When you have three people in America wanting to set the rates after
the fact, which is what would happen in the FCC with a partisan
Commission, as it is constructed today, they get to make the call, not
consumers who say: you know, I kind of like that Binge On thing. That
is new and innovative.
And the Chairman will say: Well, yeah. We let that go. We think that
is okay. That is the point. The Chairman got to say: We think that is
okay.
Prior to title II regulation, the chairman didn't have a say in that.
The marketplace did. The consumers could go: I don't like that, so I am
going to that carrier. Some other carrier can say: I don't like what
they're doing, and I am going to offer you this.
Now all that is going to get second-guessed by a government that is
too big and is too much in our lives, and that is only going to get
more regulatory in its scope and scheme.
Finally, let me just restate the argument raised earlier that somehow
consumers could be hurt by truth-in-billing fraud or paid
prioritization. We specifically addressed those in the bill that came
to the floor.
We listened to our colleagues. We listened to those who testified. We
made changes in the bill. We didn't do everything that everybody wanted
because this is a compromise process.
It is a good piece of legislation that protects consumers, encourages
innovation, and does what our constituents want us to do: draw clear
statutory lines that agencies have to follow, not devolve all authority
to them.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of H.R. 2666.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the
bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2666
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``No Rate Regulation of
Broadband Internet Access Act''.
[[Page H1749]]
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF BROADBAND RATES PROHIBITED.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal
Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged
for broadband Internet access service.
SEC. 3. EXCEPTIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the
authority of the Commission to--
(1) condition receipt of universal service support under
section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254)
by a provider of broadband Internet access service on the
regulation of the rates charged by such provider for the
supported service;
(2) enforce subpart Y of part 64 of title 47, Code of
Federal Regulations (relating to truth-in-billing
requirements); or
(3) enforce section 8.9 of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations (relating to paid prioritization).
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
For purposes of this Act, broadband Internet access service
shall not be construed to include data roaming or
interconnection.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Broadband internet access service.--The term
``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given
such term in the rules adopted in the Report and Order on
Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order that was adopted by the
Commission on February 26, 2015 (FCC 15-24).
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(3) Rate.--The term ``rate'' means the amount charged by a
provider of broadband Internet access service for the
delivery of broadband Internet traffic.
(4) Regulation.--The term ``regulation'' or ``regulate''
means, with respect to a rate, the use by the Commission of
rulemaking or enforcement authority to establish, declare, or
review the reasonableness of such rate.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House
Report 114-490. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered 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.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Yarmuth
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 114-490.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan), I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 20, strike ``; or'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 3, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
Page 3, after line 22, insert the following:
(4) promulgate regulations that require a television
broadcast station, AM or FM radio broadcast station, cable
operator, direct broadcast satellite service provider, or
satellite digital audio radio service provider, to the extent
such station, operator, or provider is required to make
material in its public inspection file available on, or
upload such material to, an Internet website, to make such
material available or upload such material in a format that
is machine-readable, such that the format supports the
automated searching for particular text within and among
documents, the bulk downloading of data contained in such
material, the aggregation, manipulation, sorting, and
analysis of the data contained in such material, and such
other functionality as the Commission considers appropriate.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will
make it easier for the American people to figure out who is trying to
influence their vote through campaign ads.
Right now, when someone is placing a political commercial on the air,
the TV station is required to upload to the FCC public site information
that identifies the name of the ad's sponsor, the duration of the ad,
and the cost of the ad. But the FCC's site is cumbersome, slow, and
impossible to search, which defeats the purpose of this requirement.
This amendment clarifies that nothing in the underlying bill will
prevent the FCC from requiring those entities that must submit a public
inspection file to do so in a machine-readable format, which would
guarantee that it is easily sortable, searchable, and downloadable.
Adopting the Lujan amendment will send a message to the FCC that
there is strong congressional support for making this information more
accessible so that the American people have at least a chance to figure
out who is trying to influence our elections.
Furthermore, this amendment would fix a real-world problem, unlike
the underlying bill, which is a vague solution in search of a
nonexistent problem.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that nothing in the
bill shall affect the FCC's authority to require that TV and radio
stations and video and audio satellite providers make their public
inspection files available online or in a machine-readable format.
Mr. Chairman, I was in the radio business for 21 years. I would guess
I am probably one of the few, if only, people who have actually had to
maintain a public file.
I don't know if the gentleman knows all the things that are in those
public files. I would be happy to go through the very long list of
them.
I don't think the way the amendment is constructed is perhaps what he
is seeking. I understand the part about public disclosure of time
purchase, who is purchasing it, and all of that.
But the public file includes all FCC authorizations, applications and
related materials, contour maps, ownership reports and related
materials, portions of Equal Employment Opportunity file, the public
and broadcasting manual itself, children's television programming
reports, DTV transition education reports, citizen agreements, then the
political file, letters and emails from the public, material relating
to FCC investigations and complaints, issues/program lists, donor lists
for noncommercials educational channels, records concerning children's
programming commercial limits, local public notice certifications and
announcements, time brokerage agreements, must-carry or retransmission
consents elections, joint sales agreements, and it goes on and on.
Ours was a full drawer. We were just a little AM and FM radio
station, and it was a full drawer in a filing cabinet.
By the way, if you didn't have each file in the proper order, you
could be fined. You had to have the political catechism in there. You
had to have all these things.
I understand what the gentleman is going for, and I am for
disclosure. We had to do it. We did it. People came and looked at the
file. It was all open and transparent, and now it does have to be
online already.
I just think this is an inappropriate place to go down this other
path, when we are dealing with rate regulation of the Internet. I
realize the gentleman cares passionately about the political disclosure
issue, but I would just argue, Mr. Chair, that this is the wrong place.
I think the amendment is clumsily worded in terms of the scope and
magnitude that would occur in terms of making all this machine-
readable. Because I am thinking about a little AM radio station out
there that is barely keeping the doors open, and we are going to tell
them they have got to have their contour maps machine-readable? I don't
even know how to do that. I know some programs like Adobe you can
click, and some you can't. I don't know. It is a pretty big new
requirement on these stations.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Clarke).
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the
Lujan, Pallone, Yarmuth, and Clarke amendment.
This commonsense amendment would ensure that the FCC can easily
determine who is paying for political ads. More specifically, this
amendment would guarantee that nothing in this bill would prevent the
FCC from requiring that TV broadcast stations, AM and FM radio
broadcast stations, cable operators, direct broadcast satellite service
providers, or satellite digital audio radio service providers
[[Page H1750]]
upload the public inspection file in the format that is machine-
readable.
Unfortunately, there is a large amount of unlimited money moving
through our electoral system. This amendment gives all voters the peace
of mind of knowing our elections are fair and transparent.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, in response to Chairman Walden--and I know that he shares my
interest in creating effective disclosure of campaign contributions and
ads--this amendment does not mandate any particular form of machine-
readable information. It only says that the Commission is not
prohibited from requiring that certain parts of information are
readable in machine format.
I want to read a few quotes on disclosure:
``Disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the
appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and
expenditures to the light of publicity.''
``With modern technology, disclosure now offers a particularly
effective means of arming the voting public with information.''
``Today, given the Internet, disclosure offers much more robust
protections against corruption.''
``Because massive quantities of information can be accessed at the
click of a mouse, disclosure is effective to a degree not possible at
the time Buckley, or even McConnell, was decided.''
All of the quotes are from the majority opinion in McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Commission, written by Chief Justice Roberts.
Now, I don't agree with the decision, but I sure do agree with his
position that disclosure is critical to the integrity of our electoral
system in the wake of this decision.
I believe that adopting the commonsense Lujan amendment shows that
Congress values transparency in government and will help restore a
level of trust with the public.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise for my closing statement to oppose
the gentleman's amendment.
Again, I think it is overly broad. Beyond that, the gentleman from
Kentucky kind of hit it on the head when he said that this doesn't
require the FCC to do anything in terms of the machine-readable
technology and all. Because, in theory, in reality, the way it is
written, it basically says: nothing in this bill prevents them from
doing something, by the way, which they can already do.
The whole point, though, is this has nothing to do with the issue at
hand in the legislation. Our constituents really believe we should take
one issue at a time.
The issue here is about controlling a bureaucracy from doing
something it has never had the power to do before: giving clarity in
the marketplace, that they cannot regulate the rates of Internet
service providers, which, in effect, has the ability of regulating
innovation in new offerings for consumers.
So I must oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 114-490.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 20, strike ``; or'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 3, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
Page 3, after line 22, insert the following:
(4) act in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R.
2666. This amendment would help to rein in some of the unintended
consequences of the bill by preserving the FCC's authority to act in
the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
The public interest is a key principle that the Commission has used
to protect consumers since Congress first created the agency in 1934,
and it is just as important today.
The FCC has consistently looked to the public interest standard when
taking action to protect consumers, foster innovation, and increase
competition.
The standard has been a hallmark of many of the most important
policies of the Commission. To give you a sense, the words ``public
interest'' appear over 100 times in the Communications Act. That is 100
times. That is how pervasive it is.
Even with the amended version of the bill that was reported out of
committee, serious concerns remain that the bill is going to have far-
reaching and unintended consequences.
For example, it could be that the Commission would no longer be able
to investigate data caps, pay for privacy practices.
The Commission could also lose further protections for various types
of unfair and discriminatory practices that affect how much they pay
for broadband.
My amendment would seek to limit some of those unintended
consequences by ensuring that the Commission continues to have the
authority that has historically served it so well.
Moreover, by preserving the FCC's authority to act in the public
interest, my amendment would safeguard the broad aims that the
Communication Act embodies.
{time} 1030
This amendment would continue to appropriately focus the FCC toward
promoting the public good. I urge my Members to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, this one is a little more insidious than
the last one because what it does is precisely what the gentleman says
it does. It says, ``Nothing in this act can affect the FCC's authority
to act in the public interest, convenience, or necessity.''
And he is right. That term of art is all over communications law. Let
me make that clear: all over communications--it is so broad, you can
drive a rate-regulated truck back through it, a de facto after-the-fact
regulation. And that is the point.
When you give the bureaucracy wide-open language that says ``in the
public interest,'' it sounds good on its face, but the practical impact
for someone who wants to regulate, it is on their own authority, they
go, well, we think that rate is in the public interest to bring down
after the fact.
See, then what we have done is empower others unelected to make
decisions based on a term of art which, while it may be pervasive, is
also wide open. That is what we are trying to avoid here, Mr. Chairman.
See, the FCC could say, we are not going to rate regulate unless we
want to rate regulate because we will determine on our own whether it
is in the public interest to do so.
All that sounds good, ``public interest'' sounds good, and it is good
and it is an important part of our law, but in this case, remember
where we start. Until Chairman Wheeler was directed, in effect, by the
White House to treat the Internet like an old utility, none of this was
regulated. That is the vibrant Internet we have today, and that is what
Republicans are trying to preserve, an open Internet.
We are all with you on blocking and throttling and pay prioritization
and those issues. I have got draft legislation to legally say no to all
of that.
[[Page H1751]]
But when it comes to suffocating innovation in the marketplace and new
offerings to consumers and really the vibrant competition that has been
out here to this point, we have to draw a line with our friends.
They say you don't want to tariff in advance, and we are with them on
that, but the worst thing--the worst thing--when you are in business is
the uncertainty of after-the-fact decisionmaking by your regulator--
after-the-fact decisionmaking by your regulator. Unfortunately, Mr.
McNerney's proposal here, his amendment would allow that door to remain
open, allow the agency to have this unfettered authority.
Now, we have got provisions throughout the bill and in other law,
both at State and Federal level, to protect consumers against fraud and
to protect consumers on truth-in-billing. All those things are there.
Those protections remain.
Our sole purpose here and why we have been very narrow and specific
and clear in our legislation is rate regulation is not something the
FCC should take on. Consumers should have that power and authority, and
people who want to innovate against the giant companies out there
should be able to enter that marketplace with creative new packages
that allow consumers to make choices and not have to go to Washington,
D.C., and seek privilege and an audience with the chairman to find out
if what they are proposing might be okay after the fact if they do it.
Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to Mr. McNerney's
amendment. He is a good member of the committee. I like working with
him, but in this case, the amendment is horribly flawed and would do
grave damage to the marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate--or I sort of
appreciate the chairman's comments, and I do appreciate the idea of
broadness here; but if you look at what the actual bill says, ``may not
regulate rates charged for broadband Internet services,'' that is the
definition of broad. You can't get any broader than that. So we want to
rein that in a little bit.
We don't want unintended consequences out here, but let me say what
my amendment says. ``Act in the public interest, convenience, and
necessity.''
Would the chairman like it if I took out ``convenience''? Should I
just say ``act in the public interest and necessity''? Would that be
good enough, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McNERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN. What I think would be really good is you withdraw your
amendment and vote for the underlying bill that is really clear in its
scope and faith and is a really good legislative product.
Mr. McNERNEY. Well, again, I appreciate the chairman's and Mr.
Kinzinger's work on this, and I appreciate working with the chairman on
this, but I am going to have to insist that we look at this amendment
and take it seriously. I do want to protect the public interest. That
is really what this comes down to.
Again, the term shows up 100 times in the act, so let's not turn our
back on the intent of the act. Let's move forward in a way that
protects the public interest.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would again urge opposition to the
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time as well.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-490 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. McNerney of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Yarmuth
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Yarmuth) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 231, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 150]
AYES--179
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
[[Page H1752]]
MacArthur
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--23
Bass
Black
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Delaney
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Engel
Fattah
Fincher
Hanna
Jones
Lieu, Ted
Marchant
Nadler
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Simpson
Stivers
Thompson (CA)
Tsongas
Waters, Maxine
{time} 1056
Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs. ALLEN, NUGENT, YOUNG of Indiana, GROTHMAN, and
MESSER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FARENTHOLD, ISSA, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Ms.
VELAZQUEZ, and Mr. POLIS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Sessions was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Announcement by Committee on Rules Regarding Amendment Process for H.R.
1206, H.R. 3724, H.R. 4885, and H.R. 4890
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, the Rules Committee issued
four announcements outlining the amendment processes for:
H.R. 1206, No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act;
H.R. 3724, Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act;
H.R. 4885, IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act; and
H.R. 4890, a bill to impose a ban on the payment of bonuses to
employees of the Internal Revenue Service until the Secretary of
Treasury develops and implements a comprehensive customer service
strategy.
The amendment deadline for each bill has been set for 10 a.m. on
Monday, April 18. For more details and the text of the bill, please
contact me or visit the Rules Committee Web site.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 231, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 151]
AYES--173
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--29
Black
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Cardenas
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Delaney
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Engel
Fattah
Fincher
Hanna
Jones
Kildee
Lieu, Ted
Marchant
Nadler
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Schweikert
Simpson
Stivers
Thompson (CA)
Veasey
Wagner
Walz
{time} 1102
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 151, I was meeting with a
constituent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
[[Page H1753]]
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2666) to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from
regulating the rates charged for broadband Internet access service,
and, pursuant to House Resolution 672, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. YARMUTH. I am in its current form.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Yarmuth moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2666 to the
Committee on Energy Commerce with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
Sec. __ Upon enactment of this Act it shall be in order to
consider in the House of Representatives the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 125) establishing the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017
and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2018 through 2026. All points of order against
consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The
concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the concurrent resolution and on any amendment thereto to
adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
Mr. WALDEN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading of the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
Ladies and gentlemen, today, April 15, is the deadline for Congress
to enact a budget resolution; but here we are, set to leave town
without taking any action.
To their credit, Republicans did write a budget and it was approved
by their members of the Budget Committee. So why, after months of
promises of a return to regular order, would Speaker Ryan refuse to
allow a floor vote on the Republican budget, the budget of his own
party, the party he leads?
Our obligation here in Congress is to control the purse strings of
the country. So why would a former Budget Committee chair not want a
vote on his party's budget, unless he didn't want people to know what
is inside of it.
I don't blame him. Our Democratic budget invests in education,
infrastructure, medical research, job training, job creation, American
priorities that improve our communities today and increase revenue in
the future. It is why they are called investments. In contrast, the
Republicans took the European austerity approach: eviscerating each of
those investments and taking health coverage away from 20 million
Americans, ending Medicare as we know it, and jeopardizing the
retirement of millions of Americans. It also makes us less competitive,
and encourages companies to ship jobs overseas.
Nobody knows the backlash from this rebuke of American values better
than Speaker Ryan, because the budget he wrote 4 years ago, when he was
running for Vice President, had to be disavowed by his Presidential
candidate running mate, Mitt Romney. It was so abhorrent to the
American people that even his own running mate couldn't support it.
So I get it, Mr. Speaker. I like your budget even less than you do.
But you have it, and the people deserve to know what is in it and where
their Representatives stand on it.
You know, earlier this week, Speaker Ryan gave a speech explaining
why he wasn't going to be a candidate for President, and he said one of
the reasons was we have too much work to do here in Congress.
Well, he sure is right. So why are we here, and why were we here
yesterday and the day before working on bills that have no consequence
to the American people when we should be doing the most important
business we can, and that is to decide how much money we are going to
spend and where for the American people.
This motion to recommit is simple. It says, upon the bill's passage,
we will bring the Republican budget to the floor.
So don't hide behind procedural roadblocks to block debate. If you
believe in your budget, make the case before the cameras and the
American people. Let them see the contrast in our parties' values so
they can decide for themselves.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the motion
because the instruction contains matter in the jurisdiction of a
committee to which the bill was not referred, thus violating clause 7
of rule XVI, which requires the amendment to be germane to the measure
being amended.
Committee jurisdiction is a central test of germaneness, and I am
afraid I must insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Oregon makes a point of order that the
instructions proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky are not germane.
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.
One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that an
amendment may not introduce matter within the jurisdiction of a
committee not represented in the pending measure.
The bill, H.R. 2666, as amended, addresses rates for broadband
Internet access service, which is a matter within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The instructions in the motion to recommit propose an amendment
consisting of a special order of business of the House, which is a
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.
As the Chair ruled in similar proceedings yesterday, the instructions
in the motion to recommit are not germane because they are not within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Accordingly, the motion to recommit is not germane. The point of
order is sustained, and the motion is not in order.
The question is on the passage of the bill.
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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 173, not voting 19, as follows:
[[Page H1754]]
[Roll No. 152]
AYES--241
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--173
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Black
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Delaney
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Engel
Fattah
Fincher
Hanna
Jones
Lieu, Ted
Marchant
Nadler
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Simpson
Thompson (CA)
{time} 1126
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 152 on H.R. 2666, I am not
recorded because I was absent for personal reasons. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``aye.''
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 150 for passage of the
Yarmuth Amendment No. 2, rollcall No. 151 for passage of the McNerney
Amendment No. 3, rollcall No. 152 for final passage of H.R. 2666 which
took place Friday, April 15, 2016, I am not recorded because I was
unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 150,
the Yarmuth Amendment No. 2, on rollcall No. 151, the McNerney
Amendment No. 3. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 152 for
final passage of H.R. 2666.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on April 15, 2016, I was absent and was
unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:
Rollcall No. 150--``No.''
Rollcall No. 151--``No.''
Rollcall No. 152--``No.''
____________________