[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3978-H3983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              END TAXPAYER FUNDED CELL PHONES ACT OF 2016

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 5525) to prohibit universal service support of 
commercial mobile service and commercial mobile data service through 
the Lifeline program.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5525

       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 ``End Taxpayer Funded Cell 
     Phones Act of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIFELINE SUPPORT FOR MOBILE SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Beginning on January 1, 2017, a provider 
     of commercial mobile service or commercial mobile data 
     service may not receive universal service support under 
     sections 214(e) and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 214(e); 254) for the provision of such service through 
     the Lifeline program of the Federal Communications 
     Commission.

[[Page H3979]]

       (b) Contributions.--For calendar year 2017, the amount that 
     telecommunications carriers that provide interstate 
     telecommunications services and other providers of interstate 
     telecommunications are required to contribute under section 
     254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 to Federal universal 
     service support mechanisms shall be determined--
       (1) without regard to subsection (a); and
       (2) as if the same amount of support for the provision of 
     commercial mobile service and commercial mobile data service 
     through the Lifeline program that is provided in calendar 
     year 2016 is provided in calendar year 2017.
       (c) Excess Collections.--The amount collected pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(2) shall be deposited in the general fund of 
     the Treasury of the United States, for the sole purpose of 
     deficit reduction. No portion of such amount may be treated 
     as a credit toward future contributions required under 
     section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Commercial mobile data service.--The term ``commercial 
     mobile data service'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 6001 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
     Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1401).
       (2) Commercial mobile service.--The term ``commercial 
     mobile service'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     332 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5525, the End Taxpayer Funded 
Cell Phones Act of 2016, which would prohibit universal service fund 
support through the Lifeline program to commercial mobile and data 
service carriers.
  This legislation would restore the Lifeline program to its original 
intent of providing access to telecommunication services for eligible 
individuals via landline phones.
  Many of us in this body and many of our constituents have witnessed 
tents and stands outside of our grocery stores or on the street corner 
giving away so-called free phones. At a time when everyday Americans 
are working harder and harder to make ends meet and when government 
spending is out of control, our constituents don't understand why this 
is still going on. And, Mr. Speaker, neither do I.
  Before I go further, I want to be clear. These Americans who accept 
these free phones are not the ones who are taking advantage of this 
system. It is the carriers who stand to benefit from the system that 
are taking advantage of our citizens, and the program is systemically 
unable to stop the cycle of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  When offered something for free with little or no verification and 
with little or no knowledge about who is paying for that item, I 
believe you would be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't, at 
least, consider taking the item. The problem is that there is a 
financial incentive for the carriers to expand the number of Lifeline 
users, and there is far less incentive to diligently verify the 
eligibility of the individuals who apply.
  The Lifeline program, created under President Reagan to serve a 
legitimate need, has largely gone unchecked and has ballooned since 
2005, when it was expanded to include mobile phone services.
  While the FCC has implemented reforms aimed at rooting out the waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the program, serious issues remain to this day. For 
example, the National Lifeline Accountability Database was created to 
help carriers prevent duplication of service. However, certain carriers 
use the independent economic household override to easily circumvent 
the one-phone-number-per-household rule by merely checking the box on a 
form without any supporting documentation.
  Data recently obtained by the FCC reveals that between October of 
2014 and April of 2016, carriers enrolled 4,291,647 duplicate 
subscribers to the Lifeline program by widespread use of this targeted 
exception to the program's one-person household rule. When skirting the 
rules is so easy, fraud becomes rampant.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, in April of this year, the FCC fined a 
carrier, Total Call Mobile, for overbilling the Lifeline program for 
millions of dollars by fraudulently enrolling duplicate and ineligible 
consumers. Again, the carrier, Total Call Mobile, was able to do this 
by circumventing the National Lifeline Accountability Database and 
manipulating customer information.
  These reports come on the heels of the FCC's recent announcement to 
increase the so-called budget for Lifeline by $725 million, a tax 
increase on Americans which is neither subject to congressional 
oversight nor approval.

                              {time}  1415

  While the widespread fraud is not hindering eligible recipients from 
receiving phones, it is costing taxpaying Americans money. In order to 
increase the Lifeline budget, if you will, the FCC must increase the 
universal service fee. I bet most Americans don't know what fee I am 
talking about.
  The universal service fee is a tax on the bottom of your phone bill 
right here. That so-called fee is what pays for the FCC's Universal 
Service Fund, which includes the Lifeline program.
  When the costs of the Lifeline program go up because of waste, fraud, 
and abuse, you know who pays for it?
  Everyday Americans, who are already struggling to make ends meet, get 
a tax increase on their phone bill.
  The FCC is asking for Americans to shoulder the cost of this increase 
without fully addressing the fraud, waste, and abuse within the 
program. It is clear that this lack of accountability and rampant fraud 
is systemic to the Lifeline program, and the price of this continues to 
be paid by Americans across the country.
  American taxpayers are already overburdened, Mr. Speaker, and should 
not be forced to pay for a program that is unquestionably riddled with 
waste, fraud, and abuse. It is simple good governance to rein in 
programs like Lifeline that have vastly expanded in scope and have done 
so with an ever-increasing share of Americans' hard-earned dollars. 
Congress must act to impose fiscal discipline to ensure increased costs 
are not shouldered by Americans.
  I do not stand here today and say that there is not a need for 
Lifeline, nor do I deny the fact that there are a good number of people 
in this country who are eligible for this program. We should continue 
to ensure that the Lifeline program exists to provide those people with 
access to critical telecommunications services, but we should also 
remember the many people making just barely enough not to be eligible 
for assistance through Lifeline who would be hurt by any increase in 
the taxes on their phone bill: an increase caused by a government that 
won't deal with the crisis of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  The original intent of the Lifeline program was pure: provide access 
to telecommunications services to consumers, including low-income 
consumers at reasonable and affordable rates. My legislation aims to 
restore that original intent. We can provide for people in need without 
taking from those who have nothing left to give.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5525. A few weeks ago when 
Speaker Ryan presented his anti-poverty plan, many of us were skeptical 
and argued that his proposals would not actually help the poor. The 
Ryan plan was simply a rebranding of failed policies that congressional 
Republicans have been pushing for years.
  Unfortunately, we are quickly finding out that our fears were 
justified, Mr. Speaker. Today, Speaker Ryan and the Republican majority 
are bringing a bill to the floor that would eliminate the successful 
Lifeline program that provides millions of low-income Americans access 
to basic communication services. It would leave people with no way to 
search for job postings, no way to schedule interviews, and no way to 
get a call back from a potential employer.

[[Page H3980]]

  This goes far beyond jobs, Mr. Speaker. Cell phones are a necessity 
in modern, everyday life. Low-income Americans rely more heavily on 
mobile phones and mobile Internet service than the overall population. 
Children from low-income homes use Lifeline to help do their homework. 
Seniors use it to manage their health care and call their family and 
loved ones. Victims of domestic violence use it to find the help and 
support they need, and victims of assaults use their Lifeline phones to 
call 911 in an emergency, which makes me question how exactly this bill 
fits into Speaker Ryan's anti-poverty agenda.
  The legislation is so extreme when you consider that congressional 
Republicans are looking to gut a Lifeline program created in the Reagan 
administration and expanded to include wireless service in the Bush 
administration. At least 9.8 million Americans depend on the Lifeline 
program to stay connected using mobile phones, and this bill would 
leave these people stranded.
  Some claim that the program is fraught with government waste. I heard 
that from the gentleman from Georgia. But these claims ignore the fact 
that the Obama administration has eliminated nearly three-quarters of a 
billion dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse.
  This bill will do absolutely nothing to help taxpayers. In fact, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would essentially 
create a $1.2 billion tax. Specifically, the bill directs the FCC to 
continue collecting funds from the American people that had been used 
for the Lifeline program, but not pay any benefits out. Rather than cut 
taxes, this bill essentially creates a new one.
  When it comes down to it, congressional Republicans already know 
there are significant problems with this bill. They don't want it to 
pass. That is the only way to explain why they came up with this 
cynical procedural move to ignore regular order and set up the bill to 
fail. They are bringing it up under a suspension of the rules, which 
requires a two-thirds majority. They think that the American people 
will not hold them accountable for their bad policies if they let 
Democrats kill the bill.
  Worse, this maneuver comes from a committee that normally obsesses 
with process for the agencies in our jurisdiction. It seems those 
concerns apply only to others. Well, I think more highly of our 
constituents. I think they see through these kinds of ploys.
  The American people know that if Republicans are really serious about 
battling poverty and shrinking the size of Lifeline, they would work 
with us to create more jobs for those who are unemployed or 
underemployed. The best way to lower the costs of the Lifeline program 
is to lift people up and not to take away their connection to a better 
life.
  We should not be spending our time on bills like this. We could be 
looking at ways to take guns from terrorists instead of taking phones 
from Americans who are looking for jobs. We could be working together 
to increase the minimum wage and repair our crumbling infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill abandons our most vulnerable, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today we are on the floor for a very 
important question, and the question is: Will Congress ignore knowledge 
of some $476 million that is considered documented fraud that is taking 
place on behalf of taxpayers of the United States of America?
  Mr. Speaker, a letter from Commissioner Pai at the Federal 
Communications Commission dated June 8, 2016--not even a month ago--
goes to Mr. Chris Henderson, chief executive officer, Universal Service 
Administrative Company of the United States. It documents abuse in 
here, and I would read if I may:
  ``Thank you again for your May 25 letter, which contained detailed 
data on how wireless resellers have used the National Lifeline 
Accountability Database. My staff has concluded further analysis of 
that data, and I am now concerned that the abuse of the Universal 
Service Fund's Lifeline program is more widespread than I first 
thought.''

  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott is here on the floor today to protect the 
taxpayers of this country and the integrity of the laws that we have 
passed and that we have oversight of by virtue of being Members of 
Congress. The $476 million is a problem because it is documented that 
it is duplicate use by organizations that have been fined over $50 
million by the FCC.
  In no way is Mr. Scott or this legislation attempting to take away 
Lifeline service that is very important to not only members 
particularly in rural areas, but other areas of the United States to 
provide them access to broadband that has been created by our American 
ingenuity. I would note, however, that what we are doing is that we do 
not believe the government has any business in funding the fraud that 
has been made available.
  Mr. Speaker, I was on the original Labs team out of New Jersey that 
developed broadband in the mid-1980s. I was on the original team that 
brought forth this product to the American people, and it was done with 
great anticipation to help better people's lives, to allow all areas of 
the United States--and probably the world--to better connect itself for 
the new transitional world that we would live in.
  I don't think it was ever envisioned that we would want it to be 
misused in such a way that it would cost taxpayers of this country $500 
million a year in fraud. It is there as an advocate for people to gain 
jobs, to understand education better, and to use the avenues of 
technology to better their lives.
  Where you have documented fraud, the United States Congress has a 
responsibility to stand up. I believe that is what we are saying today. 
By this suspension vote, we are expecting two-thirds of this body to 
recognize that where there is widespread fraud that the United States 
Congress, on behalf of the taxpayer who paid the bill for the fraud, 
that something responsible would be done about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from Commissioner 
Pai. I would ask, more importantly, that this Congress be responsible 
about saying it is documented fraud that we are after, not Lifeline 
service.

                            Federal Communications Commission,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2016.
     Mr. Chris Henderson,
     Chief Executive Officer, Universal Service Administrative 
         Company, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Henderson: Thank you again for your May 25 letter, 
     which contained detailed data on how wireless resellers have 
     used the National Lifeline Accountability Database (NLAD). My 
     staff has concluded further analysis of that data, and I am 
     now concerned that abuse of the Universal Service Fund's 
     Lifeline program is more widespread than I first thought.
       Before 2012, it was well known that duplicate subscribers 
     (that is, individuals getting multiple subsidies) plagued the 
     Lifeline program. In the 2012 Lifeline Reform Order, the 
     Commission codified the one-per-household rule, which 
     prohibits more than one Lifeline subscription from going to a 
     single household. To curb the problem of duplicate 
     subscriptions and enforce the one-per-household rule, the FCC 
     established the NLAD. The NLAD is designed to help carriers 
     identify and resolve duplicate claims for Lifeline service 
     and prevent future duplicates from enrolling.
       Although the NLAD rejects multiple subscribers at the same 
     address, the FCC also instructed USAC to ``implement 
     procedures to enable applicants to demonstrate at the outset 
     that any other Lifeline recipients residing at their 
     residential address are part of a separate household.'' USAC 
     did so by allowing carriers to override NLAD's rejection of 
     an applicant with the same address as another subscriber. As 
     USAC's website explains, to carry out an independent economic 
     household (IEH) override (as USAC calls it), an applicant 
     must merely check a box on a form and need not provide any 
     supporting documentation.
       Unfortunately, this well-intentioned exception to the 
     override process appears to be undermining the one-per-
     household rule. The NLAD is not preventing a large number of 
     duplicate subscribers from claiming Lifeline subsidies.
       We saw in the Total Call Mobile case how unscrupulous 
     carriers could regularly register duplicate subscribers by 
     fraudulently using the address of a local homeless shelter, 
     altering a person's name, and using fake Social Security 
     numbers to evade detection. As a result, USAC had to de-
     enroll 32,498 duplicates from Total Call Mobile's rolls.
       But your May 25 letter reveals an even greater problem. 
     Specifically, USAC's data reveal that Carriers enrolled 
     4,291,647 subscribers between October 2014 and April 2016 
     using the IEH override process. That's more than 35.3% of all 
     subscribers enrolled in

[[Page H3981]]

     NLAD-participating states during that period. Indeed, that's 
     more people than live in the State of Oregon. And the price 
     to the taxpayer is steep--just one year of service for these 
     apparent duplicates costs taxpayers $476 million.
       It is alarming that over one-third of subscribers--costing 
     taxpayers almost half a billion dollars a year--were 
     registered through an IEH override. Therefore, I respectfully 
     request that you provide the following information to my 
     office:
       1. Of the 4,291,647 subscribers enrolled using an IEH 
     override between October 2014 and April 2016, how many are 
     still enrolled in the Lifeline program? To the extent these 
     subscribers are no longer enrolled, please quantify (1) how 
     many subscribers left the program of their own volition, (2) 
     how many de-enrolled as a result of a specific investigation, 
     audit, or review, and (3) how many de-enrolled as a result of 
     annual verification checks.
       2. Please explain the process USAC used to establish the 
     current IEH override process. Specifically, please explain 
     why carriers are not required to collect any documentation 
     demonstrating that a subscriber is ``part of a separate 
     household'' for purposes of an IEH override and why staff do 
     not review either the certification form or any documentation 
     before authorizing an IEH override.
       3. Please describe the steps USAC has taken to verify the 
     integrity of the IEH override process. Specifically, I am 
     interested in understanding the steps taken to verify that 
     subscribers enrolled with an IEH override are in fact 
     economically independent from other Lifeline subscribers at 
     the same address.
       a. For example, one Total Call Mobile sales agent testified 
     that he filled out applications, checking off the boxes he 
     knew applicants needed to check to enroll. What process does 
     USAC use to minimize and detect such behavior?
       b. Does USAC contact existing subscribers at a particular 
     address before enrolling a new subscriber at that address to 
     verify economic independence?
       c. Has USAC sampled a set of subscribers to determine 
     whether subscribers can demonstrate economic independence 
     through documentation (such as tax forms)?
       d. Has USAC coordinated with federal or state agencies to 
     determine whether subscribers have consistently represented 
     themselves as economically independent?
       4. According to the 2014 Lifeline Biennial Audit Plan, 
     independent auditors were required to create a list of 
     apparent duplicates for each carrier subject to the audit and 
     verify for a sample of 30 apparent duplicates that ``at least 
     one subscriber at each address [has] complete[d] a one-per-
     household worksheet.'' Were auditors required to verify 
     whether such subscribers were actually economically 
     independent from other Lifeline subscribers at the same 
     address for a sample of apparent duplicates? If not, why not?
       5. Please describe any investigations, audits, or reviews 
     that USAC has conducted from October 2014 to the present to 
     verify that subscribers enrolled with an IEH override are in 
     fact economically independent from other Lifeline subscribers 
     at their address. Please include any such reports drafted or 
     issued by USAC or, in the case of no such report, a summary 
     of USAC's findings.
       6. Please describe any recommendations USAC has to improve 
     the IEH override process to ensure that taxpayer funds are 
     not wasted. Please identify any FCC rule changes that would 
     be necessary to effectuate such improvements.
       7. You reported in your May 2 letter that USAC also 
     conducts Payment Quality Assurance (PQA) reviews and 
     regularly analyzes the NLAD for ``anomalies, duplicates, or 
     other errors that may signal improper payments of potentially 
     fraudulent behavior.'' As a result of those reviews, USAC 
     discovered and de-enrolled 373,911 duplicates from the NLAD 
     between February and May 2015. Please describe any other 
     investigations, audits, or reviews that USAC has conducted 
     from October 2014 to the present to eliminate duplicate 
     subscribers from the NLAD. Please include any such reports 
     drafted or issued by USAC or, in the case of no such report, 
     a summary of USAC's findings.
       8. In the Total Call Mobile case, one sales agent alleged 
     that he could enroll the same person multiple times in the 
     NLAD so long as the applicant used different devices within a 
     15-minute timespan. Is this claim true? If so, what steps 
     will USAC take to close this apparent loophole?
       I appreciate USAC's continued work to protect the American 
     taxpayer and safeguard the Universal Service Fund. I also 
     appreciate that USAC often takes instruction from the FCC in 
     fulfilling its role. Given the hundreds of millions in 
     taxpayer funds apparently lost to unscrupulous behavior in 
     the Lifeline program, I hope you will agree that USAC's 
     paramount task must be to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse 
     from the Lifeline program. I therefore ask that you respond 
     with the requested information by July 28, 2016. If you have 
     any questions, please feel free to contact my office.
           Sincerely,

                                                     Ajit Pai,

                              Commissioner, Federal Communications
                                                       Commission.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. I thank the ranking member from New Jersey for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5525, a bill that 
undermines the Lifeline program and demonstrates the majority's 
continued indifference to the struggle of low-income Americans.
  The Lifeline program helps 9.8 million people across this country 
access cell phone service which, as we all know, is a necessity for 
modern everyday life. For decades, helping struggling Americans access 
basic technology was a bipartisan initiative. It was started under 
President Reagan, and then expanded under President George W. Bush. I 
am surprised and disappointed that my Republican colleagues have chosen 
today to end that tradition of bipartisanship on behalf of struggling 
families.
  Let's be clear, a vote for this bill is a vote to take critical 
devices away from people who need them the most. We are taking service 
away from older Americans who use it to manage their health care and 
call their loved ones. We are taking service away from students who use 
cell data to do their homework. We are taking service away from victims 
of domestic violence who use it to get help and support. We are taking 
service away from unemployed workers who use it to find a good-paying 
job. Most importantly, we are taking devices out of the hands of 
Americans who use Lifeline to call 911 during an emergency.
  Why?
  The majority says it will save consumers money, but the way that the 
bill is written, it will not save a dime for consumers or American 
taxpayers. We continue to collect the fees, but we do not provide 
Lifeline services. This legislation will do one thing and only one 
thing: Make it harder for low-income Americans to get back on their 
feet.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5525.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Scott for allowing me time to 
speak on this.
  Obviously, I rise today in support of H.R. 5525, the End Taxpayer 
Funded Cell Phones Act of 2016.
  This administration has continued to expand existing programs for 
their own political benefit, with one of the most glaring examples 
being the ``Obama phone,'' also known as the Lifeline program. This was 
created back in the 1980s. Lifeline brought telecommunication services 
to consumers, including those with low income.
  While this program started with good intentions, like most programs 
do, the Lifeline program has spiraled out of control, and the budget 
for this program is growing astronomically.
  In an effort to curb wasteful spending, I am proud to support my 
colleague from Georgia's legislation. It is a commonsense approach to 
reining in wasteful spending in Washington. Americans are tired of the 
Federal Government spending taxpayer money that is not accounted for, 
and this bill is a step in the right direction.
  Americans watch their money, and Washington should too. This 
legislation restores the Lifeline program back to its original purpose 
and narrows its scope to cut fraud and abuse, which has been mentioned 
multiple times here this morning. We have to put an end to bloated 
bureaucracy one Federal program at a time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Torres).
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I was a 911 dispatcher for 17\1/2\ years in 
Los Angeles. It used to be that, when we had land lines, you didn't 
have to be a subscriber to telephone service to be able to dial 911 for 
police emergencies, fire emergencies, or paramedic services. People 
could simply keep their phone plugged in and be able to dial 911.
  That is no longer the case, as more and more phone companies are 
doing away with land lines. More and more people now have to subscribe 
to telephone service in order to be able to access 911 for paramedics, 
for a police emergency, or for a fire service emergency.
  So we have created a system that is working against the poorest of 
the poor in our communities, and now the Republicans want to take that 
away from them.

[[Page H3982]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this. Allow the 
people in the United States to be able to access an ambulance, a police 
officer, or a firefighter for free. The poorest of the poor are 
depending on you to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time 
is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a couple of things that were said from 
the start.
  First of all, this piece of legislation does not eliminate the 
Lifeline program. It does move it back to land lines and away from the 
cellular services.
  I would also, respectfully, submit that multiple pieces of 
legislation have been introduced in an effort to address the waste, 
fraud, and abuse in this program. The number that I mentioned earlier--
4,291,647--is cases where we believe there has been an abuse of the 
system. The phone companies get approximately $10 a month per phone 
that they hand out. That is a tremendous amount of waste, fraud, and 
abuse. It is almost $500 million.
  So when we see that much waste, fraud, and abuse in the system, we as 
a Congress have a responsibility to put the integrity back into that 
system.
  There have been a tremendous number of pieces of legislation that 
have been introduced. They have all not been able to come to the floor. 
I want to thank our leadership for putting a bill on the floor that 
does the one thing in attempting to eliminate that waste, fraud, and 
abuse of this system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the points that the gentleman 
from Georgia made.
  First of all, 85 percent of the program goes toward wireless service; 
mobile phones. So when the gentleman says that we are eliminating 
wireless and that it doesn't matter because we will go back to land 
lines, that is just simply not the case. That is what the gentlewoman 
from California just explained.
  I am concerned that what I am really hearing from the gentleman from 
Georgia is the notion that somehow, if there are more than two lines at 
a given address, it is fraud. I just want to eliminate that notion 
because I think that criticism misses the point.
  There is an exception in the Lifeline program that can permit more 
than one line per household. This exception is a critical feature that 
allows people without a long-term home address to take advantage of the 
program. These are the very people Lifeline was designed to help.
  The system allows those living in a homeless shelter, without a 
stable address, to have access to a phone. It even allows veterans in a 
group home to access the Internet. So it is not fraud to allow these 
people access to phones because they happen to have the same address.
  While this particular feature of the program may not be the cause of 
harm that has been alleged, Democrats are serious about eliminating the 
waste, fraud, and abuse from the Lifeline program. We stand ready to 
work with Republicans to make the program better.
  When we had a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of 
the points we were making was, just cutting the program doesn't 
eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. You understand, this bill simply 
says we are going to cut the funds. It doesn't say how that is going to 
eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I will tell you there never was a markup. It just came to the floor. 
We did have a hearing. There was no markup. So this is not regular 
order. But the bottom line is, we said over and over again, as 
Democrats: work with us to eliminate the fraud and abuse. The Obama 
administration has always done that.
  This doesn't do that. This just cuts the program and goes back to 
what my two colleagues from California were saying: you now have all 
these people who are poor and working people, who don't have enough 
money to pay for these phones. They just don't have the phone anymore, 
and so they don't have access to a mobile phone in order to make those 
critical calls for some of the purposes that were mentioned.
  As I said, during the Obama administration, the FCC has already 
reduced expenditures by nearly a billion dollars. In fact, the FCC 
recently took additional substantial steps to prevent potential abuses 
of the program. The FCC very recently created an independent, third-
party National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier. So there is a singular, 
disinterested referee making Lifeline eligibility decisions.
  So an effort is being made--a serious effort--that has already saved 
a lot of money to try to improve this program. But, again, the bill 
before us does nothing to target waste, fraud, or abuse. It just cuts 
off truly deserving low-income Americans from a program that can help 
them improve their lives.
  So for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  In closing, I don't want to keep repeating the same thing, but I 
think it is pretty clear where I and my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle stand. This bill would cut off millions of low-income persons 
from having wireless service and access to the Internet. If enacted, it 
would prohibit commercial wireless providers from receiving money from 
the Universal Service Fund Lifeline program, and that program 
subsidizes phones for low-income Americans. Without this program, 
millions of Americans will be left stranded, without any phones.
  The bill is being brought to the floor under suspension of the rules, 
even though no committee has actually held a markup on the bill.
  I urge Members to vote ``no,'' to protect low-income Americans' 
Lifeline wireless phone service.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I, again, want to reiterate that this bill does not eliminate the 
Lifeline program. It takes it back to the original intent.
  I appreciate the newfound commitment to deal with the waste, fraud, 
and abuse, and I look forward to working with you on that legislation, 
if this one should not pass. We have a responsibility to make sure 
that, when we are creating access to any program, we have integrity in 
this program. This is not in any way, shape, or form intended to do 
anything but to bring that integrity back.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this is about eliminating approximately $500 
million a year worth of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 
5525, the End Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act of 2016, because it will 
end an essential program that helps millions of elderly, low-income and 
poor people have access to cellphone service.
  As the founder and chair of the Children's Caucus I am particularly 
focused on the needs of children and their families.
  H.R. 5525 would deny the Universal Service Fund, the charge levied on 
land lines to help fund telecommunications services for low income 
people, the ability to use funds to help people purchase cell phones.
  The Lifeline Program was first implemented in 1985 by President 
Reagan and expanded in 2005 by President George W. Bush to include 
commercial mobile service and commercial data service, the Lifeline 
program ensures that all Americans have the opportunities, assistance, 
and security that phone service brings.
  Lifeline is a successful program, currently supporting over 12 
million people who make up our nation's most vulnerable populations to 
call 911 and other emergency services, contact prospective and current 
employers, and connect with essential health, social, employment, and 
educational services.
  According to one Lifeline provider, more than 80 percent of Lifeline 
subscribers in 2011 had an average household income below $15,000; more 
than 45 percent of Lifeline subscribers were Caucasian compared to 40 
percent who were African American and 7 percent who were Hispanic.
  In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, the Commission included 
broadband as a support service in the Lifeline program.

[[Page H3983]]

  The Commission also set out minimum service standards for Lifeline-
supported services to ensure maximum value for the universal service 
dollar, and established a National Eligibility Verifier to make 
independent subscriber eligibility determinations.
  Lifeline enables the most vulnerable among us to be participating 
members of our society; cutting wireless services could prevent 
individuals from being able to, among other things:
  receive a communication about a child's illness at school while they 
are at work;
  summon medical help in a car accident;
  speak with their employers about additional work shifts while 
commuting by public transit; or
  alert first-responders of public emergencies (such as a fast-moving 
fire, a flooded road, or a violent attack) that pose a threat to the 
larger community.
  Today, 9.8 million Americans depend on the Lifeline program to stay 
connected using mobile phones.
  The legislation comes on the heels of real enforcement by the FCC to 
crack down on carriers that have abused the program, including a $51 
million fine against Total Call Mobile announced in April.
  Even more, this shameful bill was not considered under regular order 
and has not been considered by any committee.
  If the critics of the Lifeline program sincerely think the costs of 
the program are a problem, they should work with Democrats to address 
inequality, to close the gender pay gap, to raise the minimum wage, and 
to put more people to work through universal broadband infrastructure 
projects.
  The Lifeline Program is working in my state of Texas.
  Texans are eligible for lifeline cell phone service if they receive 
benefits from any of the following programs:
  National School Lunch (free program only);
  Federal Public Housing Assistance / Section 8;
  Health Benefit Coverage under Children's Health Insurance Plan 
(CHIP);
  Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP)
  Medicaid;
  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps);
  Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
  Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance;
  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
  Tribally-Administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
  Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations;
  You may also qualify for lifeline service in Texas if your Total 
Household Income is at or under 150 percent of the Federal Poverty 
Guidelines.
  For these reasons I join the NAACP in strongly opposing H.R. 5525, 
because it will do real damage to our national effort to expand 
indispensable access to telephone and cellphone service.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 5525.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5525.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________