[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 28, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2478-H2486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 34, PROVIDING FOR 
     CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE FEDERAL 
                       COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 230

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. 
     Res. 34) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating 
     to ``Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
     Other Telecommunications Services''. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce; and (2) one motion to commit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 230 provides for a rule to 
consider a Congressional Review Act resolution which will undo a 
duplicative regulation put into place by the previous administration in 
the final hours of that Presidency.
  The rule brings before the House this resolution so that Congress may 
remove through the proper legislative process rules promulgated by 
bureaucrats who remain unaccountable to the American people. This 
process allows those who are accountable--the elected Representatives 
in Congress--to fight for our constituents' rights and liberties.
  House Resolution 230 provides for a closed rule for the Congressional 
Review Act resolution, S.J. Res. 34, the standard procedure for such 
resolutions, since the sole purpose of the resolution is to remove a 
regulation from the Federal Register.

[[Page H2479]]

  


                              {time}  1315

  The rule allows for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the 
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
Further, the minority is afforded the customary motion to commit.
  The Federal Communications Commission issued its Open Internet Order, 
reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers, which brought 
them under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission. 
The Federal Trade Commission is the primary regulator of companies' 
privacy and data security practices; however, the Federal Trade 
Commission's regulatory authority under section 5 of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act does not extend to common carriers. Therefore, the 
reclassification of broadband internet service providers as common 
carriers created a legal enforcement gap.
  The Federal Communications Commission determined that the privacy 
provisions of the Communications Act would now apply to broadband 
internet service providers and that new and expanded privacy rules were 
necessary. Therefore, the Federal Communications Commission promulgated 
new privacy rules for common carriers on October 27, 2016. These rules 
were adopted a mere 10 days before the 2016 Presidential election. They 
were adopted on a party-line vote and over serious objections by the 
minority Commission members and the internet service providers. The 
Federal Communications Commission's rules are a departure from the 
privacy protections that have been applied by the Federal Trade 
Commission for years.
  The Federal Trade Commission employs an opt-out model that requires 
companies to provide consumers notice of the data that is collected and 
how it will be used. Consumers are then given the option to opt out of 
this data collection if they so choose. Instead of implementing well-
established collection practices that are accepted industrywide, the 
Federal Communications Commission chose to promulgate an opt-in model 
for its new internet service providers. This model prohibits broadband 
internet service providers from using, disclosing, or providing access 
to customer proprietary information without the customer's affirmative 
opt-in consent. Such data includes browsing history, application usage, 
and location data, among other types of information.
  While this may sound like a good thing to opt in to, in reality, it 
unfairly skews the market in favor of providers that already have 
access to consumer information. For example, search engines, social 
media sites, and internet content providers like Netflix, Google, 
Facebook, Amazon, and Apple, these providers, known as edge providers, 
are free to collect consumer data that broadband internet service 
providers, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications 
Commission, are not. The ability to provide consumer data drives the 
digital advertising market.
  The Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules arbitrarily 
treat internet service providers differently from the rest of the 
internet, amounting to government intervention in the free market. The 
Federal Communications Commission stated that the rules would provide 
more transparency, the rules would provide more choice, the rules would 
provide more protection; however, these expanded provisions may also 
result in more frequent breach notifications, leading to a weaker focus 
on security by consumers who do suffer from notification fatigue.
  While the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules were 
meant to protect consumers, they actually can inhibit security and 
market competition while creating confusion by subjecting parts of the 
internet ecosystem to different rules and different jurisdictions. To 
correct this policy, on March 23, 2017, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 34, 
a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to nullify the 
privacy rulemaking promulgated by the Federal Communications 
Commission.
  Prior to the reclassification of broadband internet service providers 
as common carriers under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications 
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission regulated companies' privacy 
practices while preserving the Federal Communications Commission's 
authority to enforce privacy obligations of broadband service providers 
on a case-by-case basis.
  This Congressional Review Act will restore the status quo that 
existed prior to the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet 
Order and bring the privacy practices of all parts of the internet back 
into balance. Not only will this level the playing field for an 
increasingly anticompetitive market, but it will ensure parity in the 
protection of consumer data.
  The new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, 
has called to halt the Federal Communications Commission's privacy 
rules. He stated: ``All actors in the online space should be subject to 
the same rules. . . . The Federal Government shouldn't favor one set of 
companies over another.'' This is precisely the type of limited 
government that we should be striving for after years of overreaching 
by the previous administration and its regulations. The Congressional 
Review Act protects consumers, and it restores the free market 
competitiveness that actually allows our economy to thrive.
  The Congressional Review Act is an important tool in maintaining 
accountability at the Federal level. Its necessity has never been more 
apparent than over the past 2 months, where this Congress has needed to 
step in and remove burdensome, unbalanced regulations put in place by 
the prior administration and their team just as they were walking out 
the door.
  House Republicans today will stand up for the rights of our 
constituents against the out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. I urge my 
colleagues to support today's rule and the underlying Congressional 
Review Act resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, up until now, every President since Gerald 
Ford has disclosed their tax return information. These returns provide 
a basic level of transparency that helps ensure the public's 
interest is placed first. The American people deserve the same level of 
disclosure from this administration. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
Representative Eshoo's bill that would require Presidents and major 
party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) to discuss this proposal and also the important 
aspects of the underlying bill that need to be responded to.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Colorado 
for his leadership and for yielding time to me.
  First of all, I would like to respond to the gentleman's presentation 
about the underlying bill.
  Make no mistake about it, what the underlying bill does today is it 
wipes out--it totally wipes out--privacy protections for consumers on 
the internet. That is what it does. There are not duplicative 
regulations. I know that it was stated on the floor that there are 
duplicative regulations.
  There are two agencies--the Federal Communications Commission and the 
Federal Trade Commission--however, it is only the FCC, the Federal 
Communications Commission, that can actually protect consumers by 
enforcing the protections. The FTC does not have that authority.
  What happens today if these privacy protections are ripped away from 
the American people? Well, all the information that you give to your 
internet service provider, whether it is Comcast, whether it is cable 
providers, Charter, AT&T, the one that you pay a pretty big bill to, 
they can take all of the information that they have--my account, your 
account, your account, your account--and use that information to sell 
it to the highest bidder to make money off of it.
  Now, there is an additional charge in this thing, alleged charge, and 
that is,

[[Page H2480]]

well, what about Google and Netflix and Facebook? What about them? Why 
aren't they subject to what the FCC did? Well, they are edge providers. 
They are edge providers.
  You don't have to go to Google. You don't have to go to Facebook. You 
don't have to go to Netflix in order to get your internet service. That 
is why the FCC did not apply these rules to them. Maybe there should be 
a debate about them. But to equalize and say that Google and Facebook 
are equal to your internet service provider suggests to me that some 
people just don't know what they are talking about.
  This is a subject that the American people feel very, very deeply 
about. In fact, I think it is in the DNA of every American: ``I want my 
privacy, and it should be protected.'' We all feel that way.
  What is being done today is a ripping away. It is like taking a 
bandage, just stripping it away. Who do you go to? Who do you go to 
complain to? No one. No one. Because there isn't anything left to 
enforce.
  I think it is a sad day if the underlying bill passes. I think it is 
shocking that my Republican colleagues, either out of a lack of 
understanding of how the internet works, how their constituents--all of 
our constituents benefit from these protections of our privacy, and our 
information is private. I don't want anyone to take my information and 
sell it to someone and make a ton of money off of it just because they 
can get their mitts on it. That is why the privacy protections were 
adopted.
  May I ask how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 4 minutes remaining.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I will close that one off and go to the other 
reason that I am on the floor today. I thank the gentleman again for 
yielding me the time.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and, obviously, the underlying 
resolution; and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
that my bipartisan bill, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be 
made in order for immediate floor debate and a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, my legislation would require the President and all 
future Presidents and Presidential nominees to publicly disclose their 
tax returns. It is a very simple bill.
  This is the third time this year that I have offered this bill as the 
previous question motion, and for the last several weeks, Members--
including Mr. Polis, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Lofgren, and 
myself--have offered privileged resolutions directing the House to 
request the President's tax returns. Nearly every day we give the 
majority the opportunity to demonstrate leadership on this issue, and 
nearly every day they continue to help the President hide his tax 
returns from the public.
  Now, every President of both parties, since Gerald Ford, has 
voluntarily made their tax returns public. The President has 564 
financial positions in companies located in the United States and 
around the world, according to the Federal Election Commission, making 
him more susceptible to conflicts of interest than any President in our 
history. Without disclosure of his tax returns, the American people are 
prevented from knowing where his income comes from, whether he is 
dealing with foreign powers, what he owes and to whom, and how he may 
directly benefit from the policies he proposes.
  There are daily revelations about previously undisclosed meetings 
between the President's staff and Russian officials, as well as a 
steady flow of troubling information about The Trump Organization's 
ties to state-connected businesses and individuals in Turkey, 
Azerbaijan, China, and other countries. Last week, The New York Times 
reported that The Trump Organization is finalizing an agreement to 
build a hotel in partnership with a firm that has ``deep Turkish 
roots'' and business ties in Russia, Kazakhstan, and two dozen other 
countries.
  Without the disclosure of the President's tax returns, there is no 
way for the American people to know the full extent of his foreign 
entanglements and possible conflicts of interest on this or other deals 
that his family business is engaged in.

                              {time}  1330

  I think the House is failing, Mr. Speaker, to exercise our 
constitutional obligation to conduct effective oversight and operate as 
a check on the executive branch. We can change that today by taking up 
and passing this bipartisan bill, which will ensure that the President, 
and all future Presidents, will be held to a baseline level of 
disclosure. That is why I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question, so we can hold an immediate vote on the Presidential Tax 
Transparency Act.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, to bring us back to the business at hand, which is the 
rule allowing the vote on the Congressional Review Act later today, I 
want to quote now from the web page of the Federal Trade Commission, 
under the title of Protecting Consumer Privacy. Reading from their 
website:

       The Federal Trade Commission has been the chief Federal 
     agency on privacy policy and enforcement since the 1970s when 
     it began enforcing one of the first Federal privacy laws--the 
     Fair Credit Reporting Act. Since then, rapid changes in 
     technology have raised new privacy challenges, but the 
     Federal Trade Commission's overall approach has been 
     consistent. The agency uses law enforcement, policy 
     initiatives, and consumer and business education to protect 
     consumers' personal information and ensure that they have the 
     confidence to take advantage of the many benefits of an ever-
     changing marketplace.

  This is from the ftc.gov website.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the web page of the Federal 
Trade Commission.

                        Federal Trade Commission


                      Protecting Consumer Privacy

       The FTC has been the chief federal agency on privacy policy 
     and enforcement since the 1970s, when it began enforcing one 
     of the first federal privacy laws--the Fair Credit Reporting 
     Act. Since then, rapid changes in technology have raised new 
     privacy challenges, but the FTC's overall approach has been 
     consistent: The agency uses law enforcement, policy 
     initiatives, and consumer and business education to protect 
     consumers' personal information and ensure that they have the 
     confidence to take advantage of the many benefits of the 
     ever-changing marketplace.
       FTC's Privacy Report: Balancing Privacy and Innovation;
       The Do Not Track Option: Giving Consumers a Choice;
       Making Sure Companies Keep Their Privacy Promises to 
     Consumers;
       Protecting Consumers' Financial Privacy;
       The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA): What 
     Parents Should Know.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the men and women of the Federal 
Trade Commission for all the work they have done over the years in 
protecting our privacy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the resolution.
  This resolution undermines fundamental privacy for every internet 
user. You hear my colleague on the other side trying to conflate 
different things. When your broadband provider can sell your 
information, and there is no rule prohibiting them from doing so--
effectively that includes all of your browsing history, data entered in 
forms, everything that you have done on the internet that has 
absolutely nothing to do with a relationship with a particular content 
provider or e-commerce company; you can enter information, obviously, 
for the express purpose of them optimizing your experience or selling 
you a product--they are then the owners of that information, and you 
have choice in the marketplace. Whereas, with our broadband providers, 
most of us don't have a choice. You either sign up for the local cable 
company or you don't.
  Before I discuss the many disastrous facets of this resolution, I 
also want to point out that this is yet another closed rule. There have 
been absolutely no open rules that allow Democrats and Republicans to 
bring forward amendments. No amendments are allowed under this rule 
here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Sadly, that has 
become the norm.
  The FCC recently took steps to reevaluate their rule. Commissioner 
Pai even paused their implementation to examine the FCC doing their 
job.

[[Page H2481]]

  Now, why would Congress step in and use the CRA authority, a very 
cumbersome authority, that also prohibits future implementation of 
similar rules?
  In many ways, it hamstrings the agency.
  What we are worried about is that, if this bill were to become law, 
it would essentially be impossible for the FCC to act to protect the 
privacy of Americans who use broadband ever again. So it is not a 
matter of a nuance under this rule. If we go through the process of 
passing a CRA, the FCC wouldn't be able to pass any rule--or if they 
did, it would be under a legal cloud--to protect the privacy of the 
American people. That is the danger: that CRAs are effectively 
permanent.
  The second aspect is that the FCC has already established a notice 
and comment period that allows for comment on the new rules. By going 
around that, we would avoid government transparency.
  So here is what is at stake. On October 27, 2016, after a 6-month 
rulemaking process that was open to public comment and received 
comments, the FCC developed a commonsense rule to protect our privacy. 
The rule that we are talking about undoing basically does three things, 
which are great.
  It requires broadband internet access service providers to obtain 
opt-in consent before using or sharing sensitive information. Sounds 
obvious that we would want that. We wouldn't want information that 
doesn't have an opt-in consent to be sold or used. That includes things 
like web browsing history or data that is entered on forms.
  It would also require broadband providers to use reasonable measures 
to protect the cybersecurity of our data. Again, of course.
  Third, it requires that broadband providers notify consumers in the 
event of a breach of information. Again, just like we have with credit 
card companies, we want some kind of affirmative information that is 
given to consumers that your information may be breached if there is a 
cybersecurity threat that might do that.
  This bill undoes all those things. It says that you don't have to 
notify people if there is a breach, you don't need to have reasonable 
measures to protect cybersecurity, and, most importantly, with regard 
to privacy, it will no longer require opt-in consent before using, 
sharing, or selling your most intimate personal data that you use on 
the internet.
  Now, look at the implications of this rollback. It is not just a 
collection of internet data usage, but bulk collection of all of your 
network traffic. A broadband provider could collect every search, every 
website visited, every email written and received, every piece of data 
entered, every article read, see how often you log in and how you use 
various accounts for all members of your family, including minors, and 
even your location, sell that information, and use that information 
without restriction and without opt-in.
  Think about what someone can conclude about this information--your 
political affiliation, preferences, your health.
  What could they do with it?
  They could charge pricing of goods and services discriminating 
against you based on your income or your past purchasing behavior. Your 
sensitive financial information could be used to steer you to higher 
costs and worse financial products. This rule would literally change 
how broadband providers have access to your entire personal life. It 
would make the broadband providers the most valuable part of the 
internet value chain.
  Now, we all want broadband providers to have compensation for the 
infrastructure costs and a reasonable profit. There is no doubt about 
that. Those of us who advocate for net neutrality, as I do, or those 
who advocate for privacy, we want them to have a reasonable return on 
investment so that we can all have access to broadband. And we have 
that largely through user fees and subscription fees.
  Have you seen your cable bill, Mr. Speaker?
  I have seen my cable bill. It ain't cheap anymore. But many families 
pay for it because it is the best way to have fast access to the 
internet.
  And guess what?
  The cable companies are able to justify broadband in many areas.
  Again, maybe there are some tweaks, and it would be great if there is 
a way we could have greater value for rural broadband and have them 
have an ROI. We would love that. But the answer is not to turn over the 
keys to the internet and all your personal data to cable companies and 
say: You own it all. You are more powerful than Amazon, more powerful 
than Google, more powerful than every consumer site because you own 
everything that is entered into every one of those and more, and you 
can sell it and use it as you see fit without restriction, without even 
requiring that users opt in.

  The value conveyance from the content side to the infrastructure side 
of this bill would be game-changing and game-destroying for the free 
and open internet. It simply makes no sense.
  Look, consumers should have the right to choose with who and how they 
share their personal information. When it comes to a broadband 
provider, we simply don't have that choice that you do with consumer 
websites like Facebook or Google, which are governed under a separate 
set of laws.
  Proponents of this bill are arguing that, because there is not 
adequate protection somehow in social media and the edge providers 
here, somehow the standard should be lower for broadband internet 
services. It makes no sense. In today's day and age, not having 
internet access is simply not an option for many Americans. To say you 
can choose not to have broadband, maybe in some places you can pay more 
for satellite and you might have some reasonably fast download but not 
upload that may be spotty, maybe you want to use dial-in over your 
phone. But for most of us--I use broadband. Most of us use broadband 
through our cable because it is the most cost-effective way to have 
high-speed internet access, and that is the case for most American 
families.
  So this is not the time to get rid of privacy rules and convey the 
vast ecosystem that is the internet away from the content and dynamism 
that exists there to the broadband side. That is absurd.
  People can choose not to use social media accounts, can choose what 
they share, and can choose who to enter contracts with with regard to 
searches or purchases. Social media is an optional platform that you 
can choose between many providers, but the broadband access side 
frequently looks and acts more like a monopoly.
  Supporters of this bill also mention how this somehow levels the 
playing field for broadband providers. What it does is it tilts the 
playing field entirely in their favor. Internet service providers are a 
gateway to the internet. They do not own the internet.
  The second protection the rule offers is to require reasonable 
measures be taken to protect the data that they want to collect. Again, 
we all value cybersecurity and protection of this data. Given the 
countless incidents of cyber hacking incidents, how can we entertain 
the idea of rolling back a rule that requires reasonable measures to 
protect consumer data? What are proponents advocating for? No measures 
to protect consumer data?
  The third important protection under this rule is the consumers whose 
data has been breached should be notified. Again, that is important. I 
had my credit card stolen a few years ago and got notified that it was. 
I used it at another location where it might have been compromised and 
I received notification. This eliminates that notification from users 
of broadband. It would do away with that.
  I would like to know, as would consumers, if my credit card 
information was hacked. I want to know if my personal profile or 
medical records or emails were hacked. If someone is able to attain my 
children's names, our home address, information about the schools they 
attend, or the homework they do, I would want to know.
  Now, look, this bill moves entirely the wrong direction. It basically 
seizes the value of the internet from content, from e-commerce, from 
all of the important dynamism that occurs there and tries to apply that 
to the broadband side rather than simply find a reasonable way for 
broadband providers to see a return on investment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page H2482]]

  Mr. Speaker, just to put some things in context, I wanted to share 
some information from a blog called redstate.com, posted by Seton 
Motley, on March 27, 2017, talking about the difference between the 
size and scope of edge providers versus the ISPs, the internet service 
providers. The parent company of one of the largest edge providers is 
valued at over $500 billion. He points out in his blog post, by way of 
comparison, the nation of Singapore's gross domestic product, the 
entire output for every man, woman, and child in a very productive 
country is $508 billion. Basically, the same. So the edge provider 
stands on equal financial footing of the world's 40th richest country.
  By way of contrast, the Nation's largest internet service provider 
has a net worth of $148 billion. So the edge provider is more than 
three and a half times larger than the Nation's largest ISP.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  I think we can begin to see the scope of the problem and why 
unbalancing this playing field is inherently a bad idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the evaluation is as it should be. Again, 
when infrastructure is laid, we want a reasonable ROI. It is like 
utility infrastructure or water infrastructure. I would never expect 
that the world's most valuable companies would be the pipes in the 
people's homes. The magic of the internet is the content. That is what 
drives the desire for broadband access. And, of course, there are other 
ways that people can access the internet, but broadband and cable have 
a technical advantage on price and speed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have a simple question: What the heck are you thinking? What is in 
your mind? Why would you want to give out any of your personal 
information to a faceless corporation for the sole purchase of them 
selling it?
  Give me one good reason why Comcast should know what my mother's 
medical problems are. Do you know how they would know? Because when I 
went to the doctor with her and they told me what it was, I had no clue 
what they were talking about, so I came home and I searched it on the 
net, and I searched the drugs that she was taking. The same with my 
children.
  Just last week, I bought underwear on the internet. Why should you 
know what size I take, or the color, or any of that information?

                              {time}  1345

  These companies are not going broke. That is not the situation. The 
internet is not in jeopardy. This is plain and simple, and I don't get 
this.
  When I was growing up, I thought one of the tenets of the Republican 
Party that I admired the most was privacy. It is mine, not yours, not 
the government's--mine. You can't have it unless I give it to you.
  My phone number, my Social Security number, my credit card number, my 
passwords--everything is mine. Yet you just want to give it away. You 
make one good argument: let's level the playing field. You are right. I 
agree with you. But you don't level the playing field by getting rid of 
the playing field. You level it by raising it on those who are not 
subject to this rule.
  Please give me one--not two--one good reason why all of these people 
here, why all of these people watching would want Comcast or Verizon to 
have information unless they give it to them. We are talking medical 
information. We are talking passwords. We are talking financial 
information. We are talking college applications. There is nothing in 
today's society that every one of us doesn't do every day on the 
internet, yet Comcast is going to get it--not because I said it is 
okay.
  And what are you going to do with it? Kind of look at it and say: oh, 
yeah, hey, Mike takes a size 38 underwear. That is great. They are 
going to sell it to the underwear companies. Hey, he bought this kind 
of underwear. He likes this color. Let's give him ads. By the way, most 
of those ads are useless, because I already bought the underwear. I 
don't need any more.
  But it is none of their information. It is none of their business. Go 
out in the street, please, leave Capitol Hill for 5 minutes. Go 
anywhere you want, find three people on the street who think it is 
okay, and you can explain to them ROIs, the company has to make 
progress, and we have to make money.
  You will lose that argument every single time, as you should. And I 
guarantee you, you won't find anybody in your district who wants this 
bill passed.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I do quite agree with what Mr. Capuano just 
shared, but I will say this: for anybody listening to this broadcast 
today, this is a classic fight of the big money against the many. The 
big money, they say that they want even more money, so they want to be 
able to dig into your private information so that they can figure out 
when you get up, when you go to bed, what you looked up, and then write 
ads just so they could try to sell you more stuff.
  And as disgusting as that is, you can see easily how that is not the 
end of it. What if you have somebody who has something really sensitive 
that they just want a little bit more information about, that is not of 
a nature where it is saleable, but it is just their business? Well, 
somebody else is going to know now. And they may well be able to 
monetize it, gather it, and distribute it.
  It is outrageous what the majority is doing today, and I can't 
possibly believe that it is conservative, that it is small government. 
I can't believe that they believe that this is what a government in 
restraint should do. The government should be protecting our rights, 
protecting our privacy. Small government means that the individual 
ought to be protected from the big powers out there, like the corporate 
interests, yet the majority is handing us over to them at this very 
hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of the majority to vote against this. I 
can't believe that a person who is a constitutional conservative would 
ever vote for a monstrosity like this. It is beyond my comprehension 
that a conservative libertarian would say: oh, yeah, give the 
individuals' information over to the big commercial interests. This is 
one of those moments.
  The majority, you guys have the House, you have the Senate, and you 
have the White House. The only restraint you have is yourselves. And I 
know there has got to be somebody in that body who believes that 
Comcast, Sprint, and all of the rest should not have anybody's 
underwear size in this body.
  It is an outrage. It is an abuse, and I urge a very emphatic ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Khanna).
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Polis for yielding and for your 
leadership on this issue.
  This resolution would overturn rules that protect a consumer's 
privacy, and they would be a handout to internet service providers: 
Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. Now, as it is, the average American, 80 percent 
of Americans, don't have a choice about which internet service provider 
they can use, and they pay six to seven times more than people pay in 
France, than people pay in Britain. And people wonder: Why is this?
  Obviously, the United States did all of the research that invented 
the internet. Why are Americans paying more? It is because they have 
monopolistic, anticompetitive practices. So what is the solution? 
Instead of making the industry more competitive so Americans have more 
choice and don't have to pay as much, what this bill wants to do is 
give these four or five internet service providers even more power, 
allowing them to take an individual's data and sell it to whoever they 
want.
  The fear of Big Brother is so real out there, as it is, people fear 
that the bureaucracy and big companies are controlling their lives. 
This bill would allow that to continue and get worse.

[[Page H2483]]

  What we need is more anticompetitive legislation. What we need is a 
stronger internet bill of rights that applies to ISPs and other 
internet service companies not a rollback of the regulations that 
currently exist.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has 
any remaining speakers.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I apparently do not have any additional 
speakers.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is no surprise that nobody wants to come to the floor and talk in 
favor of this bill because it is such an awful bill. This bill would 
allow your broadband provider of internet services to sell all of your 
personal information.
  So, again, the other side is trying to conflate two entirely 
different things. When you do a transaction within an e-commerce site 
or search site, you are agreeing to their terms of service, and you are 
engaging in a discrete transaction, and the information that you enter 
is subject to their terms of use--completely appropriate. A competitor 
is only a click away.
  Whether there are any monopolistic content providers is a different 
matter for a different day, and a different Federal agency--the FTC. 
What we are talking about here is the access piece, the broadband 
access piece. They actually, through the pipes, get to see all of the 
information that is entered that you see: every email; all of your 
credit card information; if you use the internet for any personal 
medical research, all of your personal medical research; your kids' 
information, everything your kids and minors in the family do. And what 
this bill says is: you don't have to require people to opt in to have 
their information used.
  Consumers should be in control of their own information. They 
shouldn't be forced to sell and give that information to who knows who 
simply for the price of admission for access to the internet.
  Again, we all want there to be a reasonable capital return on 
infrastructure and on broadband. That is something we can agree on. If 
there is a case to be made that we can do better in providing an 
economic return to encourage rural broadband, I am for it. I know many 
of my colleagues on the other side would be for it. Let's do it.
  What we don't want to do in that process is turn over the entire 
value chain of the internet to the infrastructure and provider side, 
rather than the dynamic innovative content and e-commerce side.
  I would like to read an excerpt from two letters from groups who are 
opposed to this bill. The first is a coalition of 19 media, justice, 
consumer protection, civil liberties, and privacy groups.
  Their concern that: ``Without these rules, ISPs could use and 
disclose customer information at will. The result could be extensive 
harm caused by breaches or misuse of data.''
  They remind us that: ``The FCC's order simply restores people's 
control over their personal information and lets them choose the terms 
on which ISPs can use it, share it, or sell it.''
  Consumers should be in control of their own information.
  The second letter is from Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer 
Reports. They say, in part, that this bill ``would strip consumers of 
their privacy rights and . . . leave them with no protections at all.''
  I include in the Record those two letters, Mr. Speaker.

                                                 January 27, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Schumer,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Senator McConnell, Representative 
     Pelosi, and Senator Schumer: The undersigned media justice, 
     consumer protection, civil liberties, and privacy groups 
     strongly urge you to oppose the use of the Congressional 
     Review Act (CRA) to adopt a Resolution of Disapproval 
     overturning the FCC's broadband privacy order. That order 
     implements the mandates in Section 222 of the 1996 
     Telecommunications Act, which an overwhelming, bipartisan 
     majority of Congress enacted to protect telecommunications 
     users' privacy. The cable, telecom, wireless, and advertising 
     lobbies request for CRA intervention is just another industry 
     attempt to overturn rules that empower users and give them a 
     say in how their private information may be used.
       Not satisfied with trying to appeal the rules of the 
     agency, industry lobbyists have asked Congress to punish 
     internet users by way of restraining the FCC, when all the 
     agency did was implement Congress' own directive in the 1996 
     Act. This irresponsible, scorched-earth tactic is as harmful 
     as it is hypocritical. If Congress were to take the industry 
     up on its request, a Resolution of Disapproval could exempt 
     internet service providers (ISPs) from any and all privacy 
     rules at the FCC. As you know, a successful CRA on the 
     privacy rules could preclude the FCC from promulgating any 
     ``substantially similar'' regulations in the future--in 
     direct conflict with Congress' clear intention in Section 222 
     that telecommunications carriers protect their customers' 
     privacy. It could also preclude the FCC from addressing any 
     of the other issues in the privacy order like requiring data 
     breach notification and from revisiting these issues as 
     technology continues to evolve in the future. The true 
     consequences of this revoked authority are apparent when 
     considering the ISPs' other efforts to undermine the rules. 
     Without these rules, ISPs could use and disclose customer 
     information at will. The result could be extensive harm 
     caused by breaches or misuse of data.
       Broadband ISPs, by virtue of their position as gatekeepers 
     to everything on the internet, have a largely unencumbered 
     view into their customers' online communications. That 
     includes the websites they visit, the videos they watch, and 
     the messages they send. Even when that traffic is encrypted, 
     ISPs can gather vast troves of valuable information on their 
     users' habits; but researchers have shown that much of the 
     most sensitive information remains unencrypted.
       The FCC's order simply restores people's control over their 
     personal information and lets them choose the terms on which 
     ISPs can use it, share it, or sell it. Americans are 
     increasingly concerned about their privacy, and in some cases 
     have begun to censor their online activity for fear their 
     personal information may be compromised. Consumers have 
     repeatedly expressed their desire for more privacy 
     protections and their belief that the government helps ensure 
     those protections are met. The FCC's rules give broadband 
     customers confidence that their privacy and choices will be 
     honored, but it does not in any way ban ISPs' ability to 
     market to users who opt-in to receive any such targeted 
     offers.
       The ISPs' overreaction to the FCC's broadband privacy rules 
     has been remarkable. Their supposed concerns about the rule 
     are significantly overblown. Some broadband providers and 
     trade associations inaccurately suggest that this rule is a 
     full ban on data use and disclosure by ISPs, and from there 
     complain that it will hamstring ISPs' ability to compete with 
     other large advertising companies and platforms like Google 
     and Facebook. To the contrary, ISPs can and likely will 
     continue to be able to benefit from use and sharing of their 
     customers' data, so long as those customers consent to such 
     uses. The rules merely require the ISPs to obtain that 
     informed consent.
       The ISPs and their trade associations already have several 
     petitions for reconsideration of the privacy rules before the 
     FCC. Their petitions argue that the FCC should either adopt a 
     ``Federal Trade Commission style'' approach to broadband 
     privacy, or that it should retreat from the field and its 
     statutory duty in favor of the Federal Trade Commission 
     itself. All of these suggestions are fatally flawed. Not only 
     is the FCC well positioned to continue in its statutorily 
     mandated role as the privacy watchdog for broadband telecom 
     customers, it is the only agency able to do so. As the 9th 
     Circuit recently decided in a case brought by AT&T, common 
     carriers are entirely exempt from FTC jurisdiction, meaning 
     that presently there is no privacy replacement for broadband 
     customers waiting at the FTC if Congress disapproves the 
     FCC's rules here.
       This lays bare the true intent of these industry groups, 
     who also went to the FCC asking for fine-tuning and 
     reconsideration of the rules before they sent their CRA 
     request. These groups now ask Congress to create a vacuum and 
     to give ISPs carte blanche, with no privacy rules or 
     enforcement in place. Without clear rules of the road under 
     Section 222, broadband users will have no certainty about how 
     their private information can be used and no protection 
     against its abuse. ISPs could and would use and disclose 
     consumer information at will, leading to extensive harm 
     caused by breaches and by misuse of data properly belonging 
     to consumers.
       Congress told the FCC in 1996 to ensure that 
     telecommunications carriers protect the information they 
     collect about their customers. Industry groups now ask 
     Congress to ignore the mandates in the Communications Act, 
     enacted with strong bipartisan support, and overturn the 
     FCC's attempts to implement Congress's word. The CRA is a 
     blunt instrument and it is inappropriate in this instance, 
     where rules clearly benefit internet users notwithstanding 
     ISPs' disagreement with them.

[[Page H2484]]

       We strongly urge you to oppose any resolution of 
     disapproval that would overturn the FCC's broadband privacy 
     rule.
           Sincerely,
       Access Now, American Civil Liberties Union, Broadband 
     Alliance of Mendocino County, Center for Democracy and 
     Technology, Center for Digital Democracy, Center for Media 
     Justice, Color of Change, Consumer Action, Consumer 
     Federation of America, Consumer Federation of California, 
     Consumer Watchdog, Consumer's Union, Free Press Action Fund, 
     May First/People Link, National Hispanic Media Coalition, New 
     America's Open Technology Institute, Online Trust Alliance, 
     Privacy Rights Clearing House, Public Knowledge.
                                  ____



                                              Consumers Union,

                                                   March 27, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: Consumers Union, the policy and 
     mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, writes regarding House 
     consideration of S.J. Res. 34, approved by a 50-48 party line 
     vote in the Senate last week.
       This resolution, if passed by the House and signed into law 
     by President, would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to 
     nullify the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) newly-
     enacted broadband privacy rules that give consumers better 
     control over their data. Many Senators cited ``consumer 
     confusion'' as a reason to do away with the FCC's privacy 
     rules, but we have seen no evidence proving this assertion 
     and fail to understand how taking away increased privacy 
     protections eliminates confusion. Therefore, we strongly 
     oppose passage of this resolution--it would strip consumers 
     of their privacy rights and, as we explain below, leave them 
     with no protections at all. We urge you to vote no on S.J. 
     Res. 34.
       The FCC made history last October when it adopted consumer-
     friendly privacy rules that give consumers more control over 
     how their information is collected by internet service 
     providers (ISPs). Said another way, these rules permit 
     consumers to decide when an ISP can collect a treasure trove 
     of consumer information, whether it is a web browsing history 
     or the apps a consumer may have on a smartphone. We believe 
     the rules are simple, reasonable, and straightforward.
       ISPs, by virtue of their position as gatekeepers to 
     everything on the internet, enjoy a unique window into 
     consumers' online activities. Data including websites 
     consumers visit, videos viewed, and messages sent is very 
     valuable. Small wonder, then, that ISPs are working so hard 
     to have the FCC's new privacy rules thrown out through use of 
     the Congressional Review Act. But we should make no mistake: 
     abandoning the FCC's new privacy rules is about what benefits 
     big cable companies and not about what is best for consumers.
       Many argue the FCC should have the same privacy rules as 
     those of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). FCC Chairman 
     Ajit Pai went so far as to say ``jurisdiction over broadband 
     providers' privacy and data security practices should be 
     returned to the FTC, the nation's expert agency with respect 
     to these important subjects,'' even though the FTC currently 
     possesses no jurisdiction over the vast majority of ISPs 
     thanks to the common carrier exemption--an exemption made 
     stricter by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in last year's 
     AT&T Mobility case. We have heard this flawed logic time and 
     time again as one of the principal arguments for getting rid 
     of the FCC's strong privacy rules. Unfortunately, this is 
     such a poor solution that it amounts to no solution at all.
       For the FTC to regain jurisdiction over the privacy 
     practices of ISPs, the FCC would first have to scrap Title II 
     reclassification--not an easy task which would be both time-
     consuming and subject to judicial review, and jeopardize the 
     legal grounding of the 2015 Open Internet Order. Congress, in 
     turn, would have to pass legislation to remove the common 
     carrier exemption, thus granting the FTC jurisdiction over 
     those ISPs who are common carriers. We are skeptical Congress 
     would take such an action. Finally, the FTC does not enjoy 
     the same robust rulemaking authority that the FCC does. As a 
     result, consumers would have to wait for something bad to 
     happen before the FTC would step in to remedy a violation of 
     privacy rights. Any fondness for the FTC's approach to 
     privacy is merely support for dramatically weaker privacy 
     protections favored by most corporations.
       There is no question that consumers favor the FCC's current 
     broadband privacy rules. Consumers Union launched an online 
     petition drive last month in support of the Commission's 
     strong rules. To date, close to 50,000 consumers have signed 
     the petition and the number is growing. Last week, more than 
     24,000 consumers contacted their Senators urging them to 
     oppose the CRA resolution in the 24 hours leading up to the 
     vote. Consumers care about privacy and want the strong 
     privacy protections afforded to the them by the FCC. Any 
     removal or watering down of those rules would represent the 
     destruction of simple privacy protections for consumers.
       Even worse, if this resolution is passed, using the 
     Congressional Review Act here will prevent the FCC from 
     adopting privacy rules--even weaker ones--to protect 
     consumers in the future. Under the CRA, once a rule is 
     erased, an agency cannot move forward with any 
     ``substantially similar'' rule unless Congress enacts new 
     legislation specifically authorizing it. Among other impacts, 
     this means a bare majority in the Senate can void a rule, but 
     then restoration of that rule is subject to full legislative 
     process, including a filibuster. The CRA is a blunt 
     instrument--and if used in this context, blatantly anti-
     consumer.
       We are more than willing to work with you and your fellow 
     Representatives to craft privacy legislation that affords 
     consumer effective and easy-to-understand protections. The 
     FCC made a step in that direction when it adopted the 
     broadband privacy rules last year, and getting rid of them 
     via the Congressional Review Act is a step back, not forward. 
     Therefore, we encourage you to vote no on S.J. Res. 34.
           Respectfully,
     Laura MacCleery,
       Vice President, Consumer Policy & Mobilization, Consumer 
     Reports.
     Jonathan Schwantes,
       Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.
     Katie McInnis,
       Policy Counsel, Consumers Union.

  Mr. POLIS. I also include in the Record an op-ed that I had the 
opportunity to publish last week on this topic. My piece is entitled 
``Why Americans should be worried about their online broadband 
privacy,'' talking about this very bill that Congress has the tenacity 
to try to bring to the floor under this rule to force the most personal 
information pieces of information about every aspect of your internet 
behavior, and that of your family members, to be given to the broadband 
provider to do whatever they want with.

               [From the Huffington Post, March 22, 2017]

 Why Americans Should Be Worried About Their Online, Broadband Privacy

                            (By Jared Polis)

       Over the last couple of months, the dialogue surrounding 
     government surveillance and consumer privacy has shifted in a 
     troubling direction. While news outlets are covering 
     everything from false claims of wiretaps to outlandish claims 
     of reconnaissance microwaves, Republicans are quietly taking 
     real and dramatic steps to protect corporate profits at the 
     cost of your privacy. A few weeks ago, Senator Jeff Flake (R-
     Ariz.) and Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) filed 
     bills in both the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that, if passed, will permanently eliminate broadband users' 
     privacy protections, affecting nearly everyone who uses the 
     Internet.
       The legislation allows broadband providers to access and 
     sell consumers' information without their permission. As our 
     gateway to the Internet, Broadband Internet Service 
     Providers--commonly referred to as ISPs--have access to a 
     wealth of personal information, from our physical location to 
     our shopping habits and the medical issues we research--can 
     reveal potentially sensitive details about our personal 
     lives.
       Every search, every website visited, every article read 
     online, see how often you log into and use your various 
     online accounts and even, in some cases, collect your 
     location. Think about what someone could conclude from this 
     information about you--your overall health, risk activity, 
     political affiliation, preferences. What could they do with 
     that information? Could they change pricing of goods and 
     services depending on your income and past purchasing 
     behaviors? Could you face challenges obtaining insurance due 
     to perceptions on your health or risk behavior based on your 
     search activity? This rule change will literally allow 
     broadband providers to have access to your entire personal 
     life on a network and sell it.
       After years of advocating for further consumer protections, 
     in October 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
     took a responsible and commonsense step to establish 
     broadband privacy protections--but only months later 
     Republicans are trying to roll back the progress made and 
     repeal the existing rules, fighting alongside corporate 
     broadband providers.
       The legislation is unnecessary, as the FCC has already 
     taken steps to review the rules, pausing implementation to 
     conduct a careful examination of the complexities of 
     implementation. The Republican legislation, would stop this 
     process, bypass public comment, and eliminate the privacy 
     protections permanently and irrevocably.
       That is why I am drawing attention to this critical issue, 
     before it's too late.

  Mr. POLIS. Like these groups, I also believe that privacy is worth 
defending. In the wrong hands, information can be damaging and used for 
the wrong reasons.
  Simply put, this bill is about conveying the value of the internet to 
the infrastructure side rather than the content side. And rather than 
finding common ground to establish reasonable ROI for broadband and 
internet investments, this bill would hurt the entire internet 
ecosystem by breaking down the trust between consumers and service 
providers.
  What they are really trying to do here is shift the reasonable burden 
for cybersecurity measures from the internet servers onto consumers. At 
the

[[Page H2485]]

same time, they want to eliminate the requirements of cybersecurity 
measures, even notify consumers of violations, and they want to collect 
more and more consumer data without any protections to do what they 
want with.
  Supporting this bill would make each and every user of the internet 
vulnerable to violations of our privacy and vulnerable to cybersecurity 
threats without even receiving notifications of when our own intimate 
information, like credit card numbers, is compromised.
  The FCC took a responsible, deliberate, and commonsense step to 
establish broadband privacy protections in October 2016. If they need 
to be tweaked or changed, let's have a process to do that. This bill is 
not that process. It not only undoes those privacy protections but 
prevents the FCC from ever issuing a rule that has those privacy 
protections in it.
  Mr. Speaker, if passed, this bill would be an irrevocable step in the 
wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and 
the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I include in the Record an op-ed from The Wall Street Journal from 
March 1, 2017, by Jeff Flake, a member of the other body. The title of 
the op-ed is ``Settling a Bureaucratic Turf War in Online Privacy 
Rules.''

              [From The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 1, 2017]

        Settling a Bureaucratic Turf War in Online Privacy Rules

                            (By Jeff Flake)

       When you shop online from your tablet or browse the 
     internet on your smartphones, you expect your personal data 
     to be secure. Technology companies invest billions of dollars 
     on data security to protect consumer privacy.
       Privacy is also a cornerstone of consumer protection, with 
     federal enforcement agencies striking an appropriate balance 
     between innovation and security in their regulations. But 
     just as a flawed line of code can render a new firewall 
     program useless, the new privacy rules that were rushed 
     through in the waning days of the Obama administration risk 
     crashing our longstanding privacy-protection regime.
       For two decades, the Federal Trade Commission has been 
     America's sole online privacy regulator. Under the FTC's 
     watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the 
     world. The agency's evidence-based approach calibrates 
     privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of 
     information collected, used or shared online, and applies 
     protections in a consistent and evenhanded way across 
     business sectors. Consumer behavior demonstrates the success 
     of the FTC's regulatory approach: Each day people spend more 
     time engaging in online activities.
       But in 2015, in a bid to expand its own power, the Federal 
     Communications Commission short-circuited the effectiveness 
     of the FTC's approach by reclassifying internet service 
     providers as common carriers, subject to Title II of the 
     Communications Act.
       In taking that unprecedented action, the FCC unilaterally 
     stripped the FTC of its traditional jurisdiction over ISPs. 
     The FTC can no longer police the privacy practices of 
     providers, leaving us with a two-track system under which the 
     FCC applies its own set of rules for ISPs while the FTC 
     monitors the rest of the internet ecosystem.
       Even after the 2015 power grab, the FCC could have simply 
     adopted as its own the FTC's successful sensitivity-based 
     model of privacy regulation. Instead--after last year's 
     election--the FCC finalized privacy regulations that deviate 
     extensively from the FTC framework in several key respects.
       The FCC rules subject all web browsing and app usage data 
     to the same restrictive requirements as sensitive personal 
     information. That means that information generated from 
     looking up the latest Cardinals score or checking the weather 
     in Scottsdale is treated the same as personal health and 
     financial data.
       The new rules also restrict an ISP's ability to inform 
     customers about innovative and cost-saving product offerings. 
     So much for consumer choice.
       The FCC's overreach is a dangerous deviation from 
     successful regulation and common-sense industry practices. 
     But don't just take my word for it. The FTC concluded that 
     the FCC's decision to treat ISPs differently from the rest of 
     the internet ecosystem was ``not optimal--agency-speak for 
     ``a really bad idea.''
       Outside of the FTC's well-founded concerns, the new rules 
     are also a departure from bipartisan agreement on the need 
     for consistent online privacy rules. President Obama noted in 
     2012 that ``companies should present choices about data 
     sharing, collection, use, and disclosure that are appropriate 
     for the scale, scope, and sensitivity of personal data in 
     question at the time of collection.'' In other words, privacy 
     rules should be based on the data itself.
       But that's not how the FCC sees it. The commission's rules 
     suffocate industry and harm consumers by creating two 
     completely different sets of requirements for different parts 
     of the internet.
       To protect consumers from these harmful new regulations, I 
     will soon introduce a resolution under the Congressional 
     Review Act to repeal the FCC's flawed privacy rules. While 
     the resolution would eliminate those rules, it would not 
     change the current statutory classification of broadband 
     service or bring ISPs back under FTC jurisdiction. Instead, 
     the resolution would scrap the FCC's newly imposed privacy 
     rules in the hope that it would follow the FTC's successful 
     sensitivity-based framework.
       This CRA resolution does nothing to change the privacy 
     protections consumers currently enjoy. I hope Congress and 
     the FCC will continue working together to address issues of 
     concern down the road. However, it is imperative for rule-
     making entities to stay in their jurisdictional lanes. We 
     need to reject these harmful midnight privacy regulations 
     that serve only to empower bureaucrats and hurt consumers.

  Mr. BURGESS. I want to read from a couple of the lines from this op-
ed. The Senator states here: ``Privacy is also a cornerstone of 
consumer protection, with Federal enforcement agencies striking an 
appropriate balance between innovation and security in their 
regulations. But just as a flawed line of code can render a new 
firewall program useless, the new privacy rules that were rushed 
through in the waning days of the Obama administration risk crashing 
our longstanding privacy-protection regime.''
  Continuing to quote here: ``For two decades, the Federal Trade 
Commission has been America's sole online privacy regulator. Under the 
FTC's watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the 
world. The agency's evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and 
data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected, 
used or shared online, and applies protections in a consistent and 
evenhanded way across business sectors. Consumer behavior demonstrates 
the success of the FTC's regulatory approach: Each day people spend 
more time engaging in online activities.''
  Now, continuing to quote here: ``The FCC's overreach is a dangerous 
deviation from successful regulation and commonsense industry 
practices. But don't take my word for it. The FTC concluded that the 
FCC's decision to treat ISPs differently from the rest of the internet 
ecosystem was `not optimal'--agencyspeak for `a really bad idea.' ''
  One final quote from Senator Flake's op-ed: ``This CRA resolution 
does nothing to change the privacy protections consumers currently 
enjoy. I hope Congress and the FCC will continue working together to 
address issues of concern down the road. However, it is imperative for 
rulemaking entities to stay in their jurisdictional lanes. We need to 
reject these harmful midnight privacy regulations that serve only to 
empower bureaucrats and hurt consumers.''
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a 
critical Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a duplicative 
Federal regulation dropped on the doorstep of the American people in 
the last hours of the previous administration. The rule the House will 
be voting on today to repeal would create uncertainty and chaos 
surrounding the protection of people's privacy online.
  I want to thank Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee, the chairwoman of the 
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communication and Technology, for 
her work on this critical issue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on 
the underlying resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 230 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require 
     the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and 
     certain candidates for the office of the President, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and 
     Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be

[[Page H2486]]

     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 305.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________