[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 61 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3169-H3179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAVE THE INTERNET ACT OF 2019
General Leave
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1644.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1517
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1644) to restore the open internet order of the Federal
Communications Commission, with Mr. Carson of Indiana in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), my good
friend from the East Coast, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden),
my other good friend, each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3
minutes.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1644, the Save the
Internet Act.
This bill comes to the floor after more than 18 hours of
consideration by the Energy and Commerce Committee over the course of
hearings and markups since the start of this Congress.
During that time, we have heard from consumer advocates, minority and
underrepresented communities, rural broadband providers, small
businesses, innovators, entrepreneurs, and millions of constituents,
all calling for the restoration of net neutrality rules.
In addition, polls show that more than 86 percent of all Americans,
whether they be Republicans, Independents, or Democrats, opposed the
Trump FCC's repeal of the protections that this bill reinstates.
People around the country care deeply about a free and open internet
because it is critical for so many communities and sectors of our
economy.
This legislation will do three things:
First, it restores bipartisan, commonsense net neutrality protections
and puts a cop back on the beat to protect consumers, small businesses,
and competitors from unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory practices
by internet service providers.
Second, this bill gives the FCC the authority to protect consumers,
now and in the future, through forward-looking regulatory authority.
Third, the bill restores the FCC's legal authority to support
broadband access and deployment programs through the Universal Service
Fund.
[[Page H3170]]
These programs pay for the deployment of broadband in rural communities
through the Connect America Fund and support access for low-income
families, seniors, and veterans through the Lifeline program.
The Save the Internet Act codifies the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order
and permanently prohibits the FCC from applying provisions on rate
setting, unbundling of ISP networks, or levying additional taxes or
fees on broadband access.
This legislation that we are considering here today charts a new
course for net neutrality and would put in place 21st century rules for
a 21st century internet.
I look forward to advancing this legislation out of the House and,
ultimately, through the Congress so that we can restore these essential
protections for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, Republicans and Democrats can agree more than they
disagree on the issue of net neutrality parameters to protect a free
and open internet for consumers.
The net neutrality bright line rules Republicans support are simple,
and they are actually pretty easy to understand, Mr. Chairman: no
blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization--period. And no
government takeover of the internet by Washington bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, for the last few years, Democrats have caved in to the
idea that only putting unelected bureaucrats in charge of every facet
of the internet is the answer. And they know what all Americans know:
The bill before us today is opposed by the President, and the leader of
the Senate says it is dead on arrival there, so it will not become law.
This is the end of its journey.
They also know the internet grew up under very light-touch
regulation, which Republicans favor and which even President Clinton
favored. That is what allowed the bright innovators in our Nation's
Silicon Valley and across the world to experiment and to invent the
great services we all enjoy today. You see, they did not have to come
to Washington, D.C., to some agency and get a permit or permission
first. They didn't have to get second-guessed later, either.
Unfortunately, the regime that my friends across the aisle seek to
saddle the internet with was only in place for less than 2 years. Less
than 2 years, that is it.
Some argue that during that period, investment broadband build-out
actually declined. We had testimony at the Energy and Commerce
Committee from an internet service provider in rural Oregon who spoke
to that very fact.
This bill, called Save the Internet Act, is another plank in their
socialist agenda that would regulate the internet as if it were a
monopoly utility under the title II section of the Communications Act
of 1934. That is the law originally used to govern monopoly telephone
companies in the 1930s.
This legislation imposes that heavy hand of Washington's regulatory
bureaucracy over the single most vibrant and important driver of the
economic growth in America and the world: job creation, better quality
of life, information sharing. We call that the open internet that we
enjoy today.
I would admit, no one fully understands the implications of this
legislation, the scope of what it entails, and the impact it could have
on consumers. There is much debate on this point in the committee.
Does this bill empower the FCC to dictate where and when new
broadband networks can or must be deployed? We think it could.
Will this bill provide the authority for a government takeover and
management of private networks? We think it could.
Would this bill allow government taxation of the internet? It could.
Could it lead to government regulation of speech on the internet?
Yep.
And will this legislation limit the full potential of 5G and impede
the development of the next wave of innovation in internet services?
Most outside experts think it could.
So Republicans attempted to get to the bottom of these questions
through our hearings and our markups. The answer to all of these
questions was, regrettably, yes.
Now, we offered amendments, Mr. Chairman, at the full committee to
close the doors to these and other powers that are granted to the
Federal Communications Commission under this bill, powers that are
completely unrelated to net neutrality. Every one of those amendments
was rejected.
Supporters claim the bill locks into law more than 700 instances
where the Federal Communications Commission forbore from taking action
under title II, but supporters cannot provide Members of Congress with
a list of those 700 forbearances--nope. We have asked; no list. The
Democrats won't or can't even tell us precisely what they are putting
into law if we can't see that list.
But we even offered an amendment to truly lock in this forbearance
and prevent the FCC from imposing similar regulations in the future or
through other provisions in statute, and that, too, was rejected.
We offered an amendment protecting the next generation of wireless
networks, 5G, from the incompatible regulatory regime. That, too, was
rejected on party-line votes.
So, disappointingly, the Democrats went back on an agreement I helped
negotiate in each of the last two Congresses to relieve some of our
rural internet providers from some of the most burdensome reporting
requirements of the FCC's 2015 order.
Twice we passed that relief, and we did so unanimously in this House,
and it was bipartisan, obviously. They more than cut the relief in
half, putting costly bureaucratic reporting requirements ahead of small
internet service providers investing in connecting Americans to high-
speed internet services.
It doesn't have to be this way. It should not be this way.
Republicans have put forth serious proposals. We put forth a menu of
options as a starting point for true bipartisan net neutrality
legislation.
I have introduced a bill that codifies the FCC's bright-line rules
prohibiting blocking and throttling and paid prioritization for
internet traffic, and that would require that ISPs, internet service
providers, be transparent in their network management practices and
prices.
Two of my Republican colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce
Committee have introduced legislation that should also gain Democratic
support.
Representative Bob Latta, who is our top Republican on the
subcommittee, has legislation drawn from a proposal introduced in 2010
by the previous Democratic chairman of the full Energy and Commerce
Committee, Henry Waxman of California.
If Democrats don't believe Mr. Waxman's plan is a good starting
point, then Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers has introduced
legislation that is drawn directly from a bill that passed in
Washington State's Democratic-controlled legislature and was signed
into law in 2018 by a Democratic Governor.
So what do all three of these proposals have in common? They are
rooted in the shared principles of net neutrality that will protect
consumers, but without putting unelected bureaucrats in control of the
internet.
So I remain committed to a bipartisan solution, to preserving a free
and open internet. I actually believe it is achievable, and I want to
express to my friends on the other side of the aisle--and they are my
friends--that our work and our efforts together are genuine and have
been made in good faith.
The fact is we can permanently address blocking, throttling, and paid
prioritization. We could do so in a bipartisan way, and we all believe
in open and free internet. We believe in net neutrality.
But net neutrality is not title II, near limitless government
management of the internet. Net neutrality does not need the harmful,
heavy-handed approach of title II. Net neutrality does not require a
government takeover of the internet.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, what my friend
refers to as a takeover of the internet we call protecting consumers,
and that is what we are asking the FCC to do.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone),
chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.
[[Page H3171]]
{time} 1530
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our Subcommittee
on Communications and Technology for all the work that he has done on
this net neutrality legislation.
We are here today to debate and vote on a bill that will keep the
internet free and open. That sounds like a big deal, and it is a big
deal.
The Save the Internet Act ensures that consumers, rather than
internet service providers, have control over their internet
experience. This is just common sense. Each of us should be able to
decide what videos we watch, which sites we read, and which services we
use. Nobody should be able to influence that choice--not the government
and not the large companies that run the networks.
This legislation not only protects consumers from large corporations,
but it also strengthens our economy by promoting innovation and small
businesses. Net neutrality ensures that any business, no matter how
small, gets the same internet at the same speeds as giant corporate
interests. That is only fair. There should not be favorites.
H.R. 1644 will return strong net neutrality protections to the
internet. For over a decade, both Republican and Democratic FCCs
restricted ISPs' ability to control consumer access to the internet and
undermine small businesses' ability to compete. The Trump FCC
affirmatively gave up that authority in 2017, choosing the big
companies over the people.
The bill before us would return the FCC to its traditional role of
overseeing the Nation's channels of communications. This is a carefully
crafted bill that balances the need to put a cop on the beat without
weighing down the industry. We are preventing blocking, throttling, and
paid prioritization, and we are giving the FCC the authority to stop
harmful practices in the future that are unjust or unreasonable.
The American people, Mr. Chairman, both Democrats and Republicans,
overwhelmingly support restoring net neutrality. That makes sense. We
all want to control our own internet experience.
Again, I thank Chairman Doyle for his leadership. Let me also take a
moment to recognize the hard work of the committee staff, Alex Hoehn-
Saric, Jerry Leverich, Jennifer Epperson, AJ Brown, Dan Miller, and
Phil Murphy.
I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Save the
Internet Act.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip of the
House and a terrific member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill that would create a
government takeover of the internet.
If you look at the bill, first of all, it is always interesting to
pay attention to the titles of bills--the Save the Internet Act. Whom
do you want to save the internet from? Many would say they want to save
it from the heavy hand of government.
I have asked my friends on the other side of the aisle to please show
me what is so broken about the internet that the Federal Government
needs to come in to save it.
First of all, if you look at the growth of this great industry, this
is one of America's greatest exports. It is one of America's greatest
economic drivers. Some of the best jobs in America are created from the
technology industry that has boomed and thrived because of the growth
of the internet.
How has this internet grown? It has grown because there is no heavy
hand of the Federal Government slowing it down. If you go back to look,
as the internet continued to grow, as applications continued to get
developed on all kinds of devices, small handheld devices, the things
that people are able to do, the improvements in their daily lives,
because of the growth of the internet, the private money that has come
in, billions of dollars of private money has come in to help develop
this great superhighway. It has come in, in large part, because the
Federal Government hasn't figured out how to regulate and slow it down.
Then along comes this bill. Let's be keenly aware of what this bill
is trying to do. The bill actually imposes what is called title II
regulations of the internet. What are title II regulations? These are
laws that were created in the 1930s when there was a monopoly telephone
company.
You would have to google it these days because most people might not
remember, but they used to have these little plugs that they would push
in and pull out. You would literally pick up a telephone that was
plugged into a wall back then--it wasn't a remote device--and you would
call an operator and the operator would patch you through.
That was the series of laws that they are now trying to apply to the
internet. Can you imagine these archaic 1930s laws being forced upon
the internet that is growing so robustly that we are the envy of the
world? Our technology, American technology, is dominant in this
industry because the government doesn't have these heavy-handed
regulations.
Then along comes this bill, the Save the Internet Act, to save us
from this growth, to save us from this job creation. I think people can
clearly see what is going on here. This is a battle we are having on a
lot of fronts. It is a battle of individual freedom versus government
control.
Should you have the choice to decide which provider you want to get
your internet service from? The great thing about the internet today is
there are so many different people competing for your business, and
they are spending billions of dollars to do it.
Take a look at 5G. Maybe you are on a 3G network or a 4G network, and
now all of these private companies are spending their own money,
billions of dollars, to build out a 5G network.
Mr. Chairman, what we would like to see is more of this competition.
Yet if you go back to look when the Federal Government did try this--
because this isn't some newly created idea. Back in 2015, when there
was a different administration in the White House, a different FCC, the
FCC started to impose these kinds of regulations and limit the growth
of the internet. What happened during that period in 2015? You saw a
dramatic drop. Over $3 billion of investment went away. Private money
that used to come in to grow and expand these networks, 3G, 4G,
hopefully 5G, when the government started to impose these kinds of
regulations, people stopped investing because they said the Federal
Government telling them how to spend their private money so that we can
have a better, faster internet, they weren't going to do it.
If you look at what this bill doesn't do, that is the really
interesting part. When they talk about the people who are limiting
content and closing off lanes to the superhighway, it is not those
service providers. It is the edge providers.
These big companies that are the application developers that actually
do control your data, they are not part of this bill. They were exempt
from this bill.
So the thing that we want to do and see is a freer, more open
internet, which we have already. The government is not regulating the
internet today, and it is growing and expanding to the point where we
are the envy of the world. We have some of the best job creation in
this industry. We don't need the Federal Government to come in and save
us from this great growth and expansion.
Let's let the internet stay free and open like it is today without
the heavy hand of the Federal Government.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
I find this pretty humorous that the Republicans want to talk about
government takeover of the internet. The only person I know who has
proposed publicly to take over the internet is the President of the
United States when he said he wants to nationalize 5G.
Maybe you guys need to take a little trip over to the White House and
prevent that little government takeover of the internet.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo), a valuable member of this committee.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding.
[[Page H3172]]
First, I include in the Record a letter from the County of Santa
Clara, California, relative to the issue of net neutrality and the
underlying legislation.
County of Santa Clara,
Office of the County Executive,
San Jose, CA, April 4, 2019.
Hon. Anna Eshoo,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Eshoo: The County of Santa Clara
strongly supports H.R. 1644, the ``Save the Internet Act of
2019.'' This measure would re-establish federal rules and
policies protecting net neutrality as articulated by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its 2015 Report
and Order, In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open
Internet (FCC 15-24) (the Order).
Like local governments across the country, the County of
Santa Clara provides public safety, welfare, and governance
services that depend on an open internet. For example, County
public health alert systems and the County's virtual
emergency operations center could both be hobbled by
broadband internet access service (BIAS) provider practices
subject to regulation under the Order. The County is deeply
concerned that there currently is no ``cop on the beat''
ensuring the protection of such systems, and thus strongly
supports H.R. 1644, which would reestablish oversight of BIAS
provider practices that threaten public safety.
The County's concerns are particularly acute in light of
its past experience with BIAS provider practices. The
County's experience has demonstrated that BIAS providers will
act in their own economic interests, even when doing so
threatens public safety. For example, shortly after the FCC
revoked net neutrality protections, Verizon throttled Santa
Clara County firefighters in the midst of their efforts to
fight the then-largest fire in California history--despite
repeated requests to remove the throttling and allow the
firefights to perform their duties. These events are outlined
in the attached Declaration, submitted to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Net neutrality is also vital to the continued economic
success of our region. Santa Clara County is a world-leading
hub of high-technology innovation and development and is home
to almost 2 million residents. Net neutrality is necessary
for the prosperity of the county's economy, as it encourages
competition among businesses, fosters innovation, creates
jobs, and promotes economic vitality both within the county
and across the nation.
Preserving net neutrality for County of Santa Clara
residents has long been an action point for the County. In
2017, the County's Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted
resolution number BOS-2017-105, Resolution of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara Supporting the
Preservation of Federal Rules and Policies Protecting Net
Neutrality, to publicly confirm its support of an open
internet. In addition, the County of Santa Clara and the
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, along
with the City and County of San Francisco, California Public
Utilities Commission, 22 states (including California), the
District of Columbia, and several private and nonprofit
entities filed a lawsuit (Docket 181051, D.C. Cir.)
challenging the FCC's December 2017 decision to repeal net
neutrality policies with its Report and Order, In the Matter
of Restoring Internet Freedom (FCC 17-166).
By restoring the FCC's 2015 order In the Matter of
Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, H.R. 1644 would
ensure net neutrality. In addition, the bill would nullify
the FCC's 2017 order In the Matter of Restoring Internet
Freedom and would prohibit the enactment of any other rule
substantially the same as this order, unless the new rule is
specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of
the enactment of H.R. 1644. It is for these reasons we
support H.R. 1644.
On behalf of the County and its residents, thank you for
your co-sponsorship of this important measure that will
protect net neutrality rules and policies now and in future.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey V. Smith, M.D., J.D.,
County Executive.
Enclosure: Declaration of Fire Chief Anthony Bowden (Docket
18-1051, D.C. Cir.)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT
Case No. 18-1051 (Lead): Consolidated with Nos. 10-1052, 18-1053, 18-
1054, 18-1055, 18-1056, 18-1061, 18-1062, 18-1064, 18-1065, 18-1066,
18-1067, 18-1068, 18-1088, 18-1089, 18-1105
MOZILLA CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,--
Respondents.
DECLARATION OF FIRE CHIEF ANTHONY BOWDEN
I, Anthony Bowden, declare:
1. I make this declaration in support of the Brief of the
County of Santa Clara (``County'') in the matter referenced
above. I know the facts herein of my own personal knowledge
and if called upon to do so, I could competently testify to
them under oath.
2. 1 was recently appointed the Fire Chief for the Santa
Clara County Central Fire Protection District (``County
Fire''). As Fire Chief, I also serve as Fire Marshal for
Santa Clara County and as the California Office of Emergency
Services (OES) Operational Area Fire and Rescue Coordinator.
In these roles, I am responsible for the coordination of
mutual aid resources in Santa Clara County. This includes the
coordination of all fire resources to significant events,
such as wildfires, throughout the State, when those resources
are requested from Santa Clara County's operational area. I
have worked in fire protection for more than two decades, and
in that time, I have held every rank at County Fire.
3. Established in 1947, County Fire provides fire services
for Santa Clara County and the County's communities of
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos,
Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. The department also provides
protection for the unincorporated areas adjacent to those
cities. Wrapping in an approximately 20-mile arc around the
southern end of Silicon Valley, County Fire has grown to
include 15 fire stations, an administrative headquarters, a
maintenance facility, and several other support facilities,
and covers 128.3 square miles. The department employs almost
three hundred fire prevention, suppression, investigation,
administration, and maintenance personnel; daily emergency
response consists of more than sixty employees. County Fire
also contributes resources to all-hazard response outside
Santa Clara County and around the state. For example, County
Fire has deployed equipment and personnel in response to the
ongoing Mendocino Complex Fire, the largest fire in
California's history.
4. County Fire relies upon Internet-based systems to
provide crucial and time-sensitive public safety services.
The Internet has become an essential tool in providing fire
and emergency response, particularly for events like large
fires which require the rapid deployment and organization of
thousands of personnel and hundreds of fire engines,
aircraft, and bulldozers. During these events, resources are
marshaled from across the state and country--in some cases,
even from other countries. In these situations, a key
responsibility of emergency responders, and of County Fire in
particular, is tracking those resources and ensuring they get
to the right place as quickly and safely as possible. County
Fire, like virtually all other emergency responders, relies
heavily on the Internet to do both of these things.
5. As I explain below, County Fire has experienced
throttling by its ISP, Verizon. This throttling has had a
significant impact on our ability to provide emergency
services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being
informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's
ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency
services.
6. Only a few weeks ago, County Fire deployed OES Incident
Support Unit 5262 (``OES 5262''), to the Mendocino Complex
Fire, now the largest fire in state history. OES 5262 is
deployed to large incidents as a command and control
resource. Its primary function is to track, organize, and
prioritize routing of resources from around the state and
country to the sites where they are most needed. OES 5262
relies heavily on the use of specialized software and
Google Sheets to do near-real-time resource tracking
through the use of cloud computing over the Internet.
7. Resources tracked across such a large event include
personnel and equipment supplied from local governments
across California; the State of California; federal agencies
including the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land
Management, the U.S. Forest Service; and other countries. As
of Monday, August 13, 2018, the response effort for the
wildfires burning across California included 13,000
firefighters, multiple aircraft, dozens or hundreds of
bulldozers, and hundreds of fire engines. The wildfires have
resulted in over 726,000 acres burned and roughly 2,000
structures destroyed. With several months left in what is a
``normal'' fire season, we fully expect these numbers to
rise.
8. OES 5262 also coordinates all local government resources
deployed to the Mendocino Complex Fire. That is, the unit
facilitates resource check-in and routing for local
government resources. In doing so, the unit typically
exchanges 5-10 gigabytes of data per day via the Internet
using a mobile router and wireless connection. Near-real-time
information exchange is vital to proper function. In large
and complex fires, resource allocation requires immediate
information. Dated or stale information regarding the
availability or need for resources can slow response times
and render them far less effective. Resources could be
deployed to the wrong fire, the wrong part of a fire, or fail
to be deployed at all. Even small delays in response
translate into devastating effects, including loss of
property, and, in some cases, loss of life.
9. In the midst of our response to the Mendocino Complex
Fire, County Fire discovered the data connection for OES 5262
was being throttled by Verizon, and data rates had been
reduced to 1/200, or less, than the previous speeds. These
reduced speeds severely interfered with the OES 5262's
ability to function effectively. My Information Technology
staff communicated directly with Verizon via email about the
throttling, requesting it be immediately lifted for public
safety purposes. That email exchange is attached here as
Exhibit A. We explained the importance of OES 5262 and its
role in providing for public and first-responder safety and
requested immediate removal of the throttling. Verizon
representatives confirmed the throttling, but, rather than
restoring us to an essential data transfer speed, they
indicated that County Fire would
[[Page H3173]]
have to switch to a new data plan at more than twice the
cost, and they would only remove throttling after we
contacted the Department that handles billing and switched to
the new data plan.
10. In the interim, County Fire personnel in were forced to
use other agencies' Internet Service Providers and their own
personal devices to provide the necessary connectivity and
data transfer capability required by OES 5262. While Verizon
ultimately did lift the throttling, it was only after County
Fire subscribed to a new, more expensive plan.
11. In light of our experience, County Fire believes it is
likely that Verizon will continue to use the exigent nature
of public safety emergencies and catastrophic events to
coerce public agencies into higher cost plans ultimately
paying significantly more for mission critical service--even
if that means risking harm to public safety during
negotiations.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed on August at San Jose, California.
Anthony Bowden.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bill. To those who
may be viewing and listening in, it sounds as if, from my Republican
friends, that the sky is actually coming down around our ears. I have
good news for you. It isn't.
The ranking member of the full committee said that the Republicans
simply are opposed to paid prioritization, throttling, and blocking.
But there is something else that the American people need to know. What
they are against here is what they call the heavy hand of government.
We say it is the Federal Communications Commission that should be able
to enforce the law against throttling, blocking, and paid
prioritization.
It is as simple as that. They don't want a cop on the beat.
This is a very simple, three-page bill, but it is powerful because it
puts in place the protections that the FCC came up with in 2015.
Notably, the courts upheld that decision.
There is much talk on the other side of the aisle about Silicon
Valley. You are not from Silicon Valley; I represent it. There are
companies there that had filed suit against the ISPs because of what
they have done.
If you don't think that the ISPs haven't misbehaved, talk to the
firefighters of Santa Clara County. Talk to them. They were fighting
the worst fire in California's history when they were being throttled.
They called Verizon, and Verizon tried to sell them an upgraded plan as
they were trying to save lives.
Across America, 86 percent of the American people--Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents--support what we are doing. We want this
for our constituents. We want the protection of consumers. We don't
want any mitts on the internet. It is as simple as that. Groups from A
to Z, from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the
American Library Association, support this.
I am proud to be a net neutrality warrior, and I ask everyone in the
House to become one, too, by voting for H.R. 1644. It is a simple,
three-page, powerful bill that will serve the people of our country
well.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am now privileged to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the ranking Republican on the
Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1644, the government
takeover of the internet act.
This is not about net neutrality. If this was about net neutrality,
we would be operating under the longstanding bipartisan premise that
net neutrality would be achieved without title II.
Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I agree that
Congress needed to codify basic internet protection principles, such as
no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. The net
neutrality bill I introduced is based directly upon the proposal from
former Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, which would prevent
internet service providers from engaging in much of the discriminatory
behavior the majority is concerned about. It would do so under title I.
Both former Republican and Democratic Federal Communications
Commission Chairmen have also recognized that net neutrality can be
resolved without vastly expanding the FCC's power under title II.
It is important to recognize the difference between title I and title
II. The internet is currently regulated under title I, which means it
is considered an information service. Besides the 2 years the FCC's
2015 order was in effect, the internet has always operated under title
I, since its infancy.
Chairman Wheeler put the internet under title II rules that classify
broadband as a telecommunication service. These rules were created in
the 1930s for the monopoly telephone systems and, obviously, do not fit
on an innovative engine that has thrived on minimal government
involvement.
Although the exact framework of net neutrality has been a bipartisan
issue these past 10 years, we are at a point where Republicans and
Democrats are aligned on bright-line principles to preserve a free and
open internet. Rather than push through purely partisan legislation
drafted by a group of unelected bureaucrats, I encourage my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1644, so we can engage in a truly bipartisan
process on net neutrality and resolve this issue once and for all.
There is a menu of legislative options on the table. Each of these
net neutrality bills would ensure that the FCC is a cop on the beat to
keep the internet free and open from discriminatory conduct by ISPs.
As acknowledged by H.R. 1644's sponsor, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the bill does not preserve all aspects of a free and open
internet because it does not address blocking and prioritization done
by edge providers.
It also isn't clear if the bill addresses ambiguous definitions from
the 2015 order for specialized services or recognizes the unintended
consequences in innovations like advanced network slicing capabilities
in 5G.
The bill also does not protect small businesses. With over 3,000 ISPs
in our country, most of which are small or very small, we should make
it a priority to shield these businesses from onerous regulations.
I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee that would do just
that. It would have allowed small ISPs to focus better on expanding
their networks and serving their customers. This amendment was based on
a bipartisan compromise made in the 114th Congress and the 115th
Congress that unanimously passed the House and afforded small and often
rural ISPs predictability.
My Democratic colleagues supported the 5-year exemption and 250,000-
subscriber limit last Congress but seem to have forgotten their
statements about the need to allow small ISPs to provide broadband
access rather than being bogged down with these regulations.
{time} 1545
We have seen broadband investment and innovation decline during the
time the internet was regulated under the framework that H.R. 1644
would establish. This has been verified through studies, but also in a
recent Energy and Commerce Committee hearing when a witness who owns a
small ISP in Oregon testified on the hampering effects the 2015 order
had on his own business. While we can't quantify lost investment, we do
not know the advancements in technology we have missed out on due to
limited resources directed toward innovation.
On the point of not knowing, we still do not know the 700-plus
regulations that H.R. 1644 would permanently forbear from either.
Before we permanently lock in anything, I believe Congress should know
exactly what we are locking in. We have pressed the majority for the
list multiple times and have not received it. That is why I filed an
amendment that would have required the Federal Communications
Commission to produce this list if the bill does become law.
I support net neutrality, but I cannot and do not support H.R. 1644.
We should be providing the American people with a real net neutrality
solution rather than pushing forward an agenda that does not have the
capability to become law and won't protect the internet.
I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, my friends keep
talking about the government takeover of the internet. I am glad to see
that they are finally taking a stand against
[[Page H3174]]
the foolish 5G nationalization proposal that the Trump administration
can't seem to stop talking about.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Doyle for yielding
time this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1644. Phone calls and
letters from my constituents make it abundantly clear that they want to
see broadband internet expanded in their communities, they want greater
consumer protections, and they want it now. The digital divide is
holding them down.
Until someone has lived in a community, Mr. Chairman, that does not
have reliable access to high-speed internet, one cannot comprehend its
importance. Internet connectivity enables students regardless of their
financial circumstances the opportunity to access world-class
educational resources. It spurs economic growth by giving businesses an
opportunity to connect with customers throughout the world. It can help
bring access to quality healthcare for families in rural communities.
I say to my friends on the other side, this legislation is not a
socialist initiative. It is America, my friends, in the 21st century.
This bill provides permanent net neutrality protections and secures a
free and neutral internet for constituents. This legislation will
ensure that all Americans--Democrat, Republican, Libertarian,
Independent, and Green Party--will have their voices heard, their
stories told, and equal access to the information that is important to
them.
The Save the Internet Act addresses the way in which internet traffic
is handled before it reaches the consumer--an important step toward
closing the digital divide and making the digital economy more
inclusive. The internet was developed to enable user choice about what
content to access. That is why we need to pass this legislation, and we
need to pass it now.
I appreciate the work of Chairman Doyle and the Democratic Caucus for
understanding the urgency of passing this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
legislation. Let's send it to the Senate. Let's try to reason with our
friends in the Senate, and let's get it passed and protect the
internet.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, when it comes to
5G, Republicans had an amendment to keep 5G from being regulated by
1930s law called title II.
My friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to get into a
big discussion about the huge regulatory door they are opening in
section 201 and section 202 that allows the FCC to basically run amok
with rules. They will claim that they are locking down what the FCC did
in 2015 but, in fact, while they may close one door--although we don't
even know all those 700 rules they are forbearing against that are
going to go into statute, they can't even provide that list and this
bill isn't going anywhere--they are opening this other authority--
unlimited authority, frankly--to the FCC to regulate all these forms of
technology.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues
in opposition to the so-called Save the Internet Act. I say ``so-
called'' because it really should be called another Big Government
attempt to grab the internet act.
I am disappointed in my colleagues across the aisle who chose to
place partisan politics above the interests of the American people and
refused to work across party lines to codify actual workable solutions
that prevent anticompetitive conduct rather than continuing the
political game of information technology regulatory ping-pong under the
guise of net neutrality.
Let me be clear, I support an open and free internet. However, this
legislation doesn't do that.
What it would do is impose heavy-handed title II regulations on the
internet, which is not only unnecessary, but would actually stall
broadband deployment.
From 1996 to 2015, the internet was thriving. It grew at a rapid,
unprecedented pace and enabled countless innovative technologies that
Americans have come to rely on: connectivity for businesses, students
to do their schoolwork, families and friends staying
connected, telemedicine, and many other everyday conveniences.
However, it was under the Big Government grab of then-FCC Chairman
Wheeler and the classification of broadband as a utility-style
telecommunications service under title II that we saw a decline in
broadband deployment and online innovation and investment.
This is a serious issue, particularly for geographically challenging,
rural areas such as eastern and southeastern Ohio that already struggle
with broadband deployment. The digital divide is very real, and we have
a responsibility to provide solutions, not create additional barriers
to employment, growth, and innovation.
Rural communities don't need or want higher costs and fewer options
than they already have, and that is why I am opposed to this
legislation. As I have stated before, the only saving the internet
needs is from heavy-handed Washington regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this disingenuous
legislation.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would submit
that we are listening to the public and our constituents. Eighty-six
percent of all Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--
support what we are doing here today. It is the Republicans who are
standing up for a very small number of ISPs in this country.
It gives me great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the Speaker of the
House.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I
commend him for his extraordinary leadership on this very important
subject. To young people in our country and to every person in our
country from sea to shining sea and to the future of our country, I
join my colleagues in defense of the free and open internet which is a
pillar of our democracy. I am pleased to follow Mr. Doyle and his
leadership; Mr. Pallone, the chairman of the committee; Ms. Eshoo, a
godmother of net neutrality in an earlier time; Mr. Butterfield, for
his wonderful statement; and I know we will be hearing from
Congresswoman Matsui and other Members, and I am honored to join all of
them.
Again, I salute Chairman Mike Doyle for his leadership of the Save
the Internet Act and for his persistent, dissatisfied leadership to
protect net neutrality. I also commend our former colleague in the
House, Senator Markey, for his leadership now in the Senate.
Let us salute the millions of Americans who have marched, mobilized,
and made their voices heard in this fight, the 4 million Americans who
wrote to the FCC--that would be the Federal Communications Commission--
to support the 215 Obama-era net neutrality protections; the 10 million
Americans who weighed in again this time to oppose the 2017 Trump
decision to destroy those protections; the 600,000 Americans who tuned
in to watch a livestream of the full committee markup on this
legislation, and, Mr. Chairman, it is now 4.8 million and a growing
number who have watched the committee proceedings on the House floor
today.
That is so much enthusiasm in our country, that is the growing extent
of the interest. That is unheard of for the work that we do here.
Net neutrality is a bipartisan priority for the American people. As
Chairman Doyle said, a full 86 percent of Americans oppose the Trump
assault on net neutrality, including 82 percent of Republicans outside.
Young people, in particular, get it. This is about their jobs and
their futures. With the Save the Internet Act, Democrats are honoring
the will of the American people. We are restoring protections so that
we can stop unjust discriminatory practices by ISPs--that would be
internet service providers--that try to throttle consumers' browsing
speed, block their internet access, and increase their costs--throttle
their speed, block their access, and increase their cost.
[[Page H3175]]
It would give entrepreneurs and small businesses a level playing
field on which to compete and ensure American innovation can continue
to be the envy of the world.
This legislation also brings the power of the internet to every
corner of the country from rural America to cities, as Mr. Butterfield
pointed out, because it provides the legal basis for the Connect
America Fund.
We must close the urban-rural digital divide, although we have
challenges in urban areas as well as in rural areas, but in rural areas
this is a must do. It will make all the difference in the world
guaranteeing better and cheaper internet for everyone, so we can create
jobs and unlock the economic potential of every person in every
community.
This debate is not just about legislation. It is about the quality of
people's lives. More than 30,000 San Franciscans in my own district
have written my own office about the impact of net neutrality in their
lives.
They know that American businesses are at risk.
One writes:
As a small business owner, I depend on free and unfettered
communication with my customers and vendors. My business and
personal lifestyle are in jeopardy.
They know that America's innovation is at risk.
As a young student writes:
Without net neutrality, we lose our last medium of allowing
small and upcoming companies to thrive.
They know that our spirit of entrepreneurialism is at risk. As
another constituent writes:
The internet is a place where anyone, rich or poor, can
make a living, become successful, and make themselves known.
They know that our very democracy is at risk because as one
constituent writes:
A world without net neutrality undermines a central
priority for a democratic society--the necessity of all
citizens to inform themselves and each other.
Those are some of the communications from my constituents.
I will just tell you about a family discussion I had. I was visiting
my brother in Baltimore, Maryland, Thomas D'Alesandro, and we were
sitting around the table with his children and grandchildren. We were
talking about one thing and another that was going on in the country.
I said to his grandson: What do you think about all of this?
We were talking about national security, et cetera.
He said: My friends and I care about one thing, net neutrality.
That was so exciting to hear, and here we are delivering for young
people.
Supporting this bill means supporting our democracy and showing that
our voices--the voices of the public--are heard, that their will is
respected, and that the internet remains free and open to all. We call
on our Republican colleagues to join us to support our democracy by
restoring net neutrality.
I hope we have a good, strong bipartisan vote as a tribute to
Chairman Doyle.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would say Republicans are for
stopping any kind of action that throttles or blocks even paid
prioritization on the internet. We share that common view of net
neutrality.
But I would remind my colleagues that the legislation before us does
not in any way provide any regulatory oversight over where you go when
you get off the ISPs, get off that freeway, if you will, into places
like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. They are great American companies.
But what I hear from my constituents is they are concerned about pay
prioritization, the security, the trust, the data, and all of that that
the edge providers are a huge part of this ecosystem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Walberg).
{time} 1600
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1644. I
believe, if we use words appropriately, that should be named the
``Regain Big Government Control of the Internet Act.''
Thankfully, after 2015, we only had a short time of what was so-
called net neutrality, which are words that sound good but aren't true.
It was Big Government takeover of net neutrality, and this bill opens
the door to disastrous effects like that on getting broadband into
rural America, where I live.
I still don't have broadband. In 2015, under the so-called net
neutrality, we saw that broadband build-out stop. I am still looking
forward to it someday. So this bill would take us backwards, not
forwards.
It is clear that the bill also could have several unintended
consequences which are completely at odds with the authors' intended
outcomes.
Instead of doubling down on the light-touch framework which has
resulted in the widespread success of the internet, Mr. Chair, my
colleagues seem more interested in imposing more and bigger government
regulation.
The bill only forbears from what the FCC claims it forbore from, not
what it can forbear from through the backdoor of sections 201 and 202.
Instead of letting the markets work under a framework which still
robustly protects consumers, this bill would inject even more
uncertainty into the market. It seems that, instead of locking in
protections for consumers, the only thing it is really locking in is
more partisanship.
I urge my colleagues to work with Republicans on bipartisan
legislation that protects consumers and promotes broadband deployment
in rural America, the place I live and the place I lack broadband now
and, with the continued effort to have Big Government control, I
probably will still lack.
It is time to change that, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose
H.R. 1644, the ``Regain Big Government Control of the Internet Act.''
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, we keep hearing over
and over again that same mantra, ``government takeover of the
internet.''
What the Republicans call the heavy hand of government is what is
actually protecting consumers. If they want to stop a government
takeover of the internet, then they had better talk to the White House:
``Trump apparently wants to control 5G in a `state-run' socialist twist
to American capitalism.'' That is where you need to take those concerns
about the government takeover to.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui), vice chair of the Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, I am pleased to join my colleagues in
cosponsoring this legislation.
Our internet economy has been the envy of the world, with good
reason. The first site to ever go live on the world wide web did so in
August 1991, less than 28 years ago.
Since then, a balance of innovation and investment has transformed
the internet into a driving force of the American economy, and that
balance of innovation and investment also requires that the internet
remain open.
Innovators, entrepreneurs, businesses, and consumers rely on the
internet as an open platform for online commerce, to freely exchange
ideas, and to make internet access more accessible to more Americans.
To that end, addressing and preventing paid prioritization
arrangements that result in consumer harm has been a priority of mine
for years; and, as I have said through this debate, the fundamental
issue surrounding net neutrality is ensuring consumers don't have to
pay more for the same products and services online.
I am mindful of the potential use cases that next-generation networks
can facilitate, and I previously introduced legislation to ensure that
all consumers are able to access online content equally as we balance
the service requirements and consumer benefits of our open internet
policies.
I also want to be clear that I don't support taxing the internet,
but, going forward, I welcome a serious conversation with all my
colleagues on universal service contribution reform in order to protect
the long-term sustainability of rural broadband support.
Net neutrality protections must ensure the internet remains an open
marketplace, ensure that the internet is free of content-based
discrimination, and ensure broadband access is affordably and reliably
deployed across the country.
[[Page H3176]]
Passage of this legislation is an important step toward these goals,
and I am proud to support it.
Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Kaptur). The gentleman from Ohio has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington State (Mrs. Rodgers).
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
Madam Chair, I join my colleagues in rising in opposition to H.R.
1644. What is most disappointing to me is that it seems like this is
another example of the Democratic majority, during this Congress, being
more interested in scoring political points than actually solving a
problem.
In order for this legislation to become law, it is going to require
bipartisan support, yet the Democrats have chosen today to move forward
in a partisan way.
The rhetoric around net neutrality has been driven to a fever pitch.
Dire predictions on the end of the internet led to death threats
against the chairman of the FCC and his family, as well as against some
of our own colleagues.
Democrats say they want to save the internet; however, in the time
since the title II regulations were repealed under the Trump
administration, network speeds are up drastically. Investment and
coverage in rural areas has increased.
This debate isn't about the merits of an open internet. I support an
open, free internet, and I always have. This is truly about how we
shape the future of our economy:
Do we want to regulate the internet as a 1930s-style utility where
regulations stifle innovation and leave behind rural and poor
Americans?
Do we want an internet economy that lifts people out of poverty and
provides them with more economic opportunities?
As we work to close the digital divide, we need to decrease the
barriers to deployment, not increase them. Imposing unnecessary
regulations on small companies providing rural broadband will only
further this divide. We must protect people in a way that does not
leave underserved areas of our country behind.
Republicans, for years, have offered to work across the aisle. I have
introduced legislation modeled after a bill that passed in Washington
State, enjoying bipartisan support overwhelmingly. In fact, it was
lauded by Senator Cantwell.
She said: ``In our State, Republicans and Democrats came together. .
. . Why can't we see this same bipartisanship in the U.S. House?''
I ask my Democratic colleagues today that same question.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I would say to the
gentlewoman that we know that net neutrality rules don't affect
internet speed or internet investment.
And who says that? The CEOs of all the internet companies when they
are talking to their Wall Street investors.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1644.
One of the greatest aspects of the internet is its potential to be an
equalizer for small businesses that might not otherwise have resources
to set up a brick-and-mortar shop. The internet provides them with the
means to reach customers around the world. For students who want to
learn how to code but whose schools can't afford such classes, the
internet opens the door for them. And for veterans who would otherwise
have to drive hours to receive healthcare services, the internet gives
them the ability to consult with their doctors wherever they are.
All of this is only possible if internet access is unfiltered, and
that is not the case today. Today, we don't even have a free and open
internet because Trump's FCC has repealed net neutrality protections
and set our country on a path backwards.
More than 8,000 of my constituents have written to me and called to
express their opposition to elimination of these protections.
I also held a net neutrality townhall, where people came from all
over my district. They were of different ages, occupations, and
backgrounds, but they all had something in common: They overwhelmingly
wanted strong net neutrality protections.
I have listened to my constituents, and that is why I am fighting
hard to restore these crucial protections, and that is why I became an
original cosponsor of the Save the Internet Act.
We have an opportunity today to pass legislation that would offer
real protections for constituents. This legislation is simple. It takes
an approach that accounts for the internet of today and tomorrow, and
it provides certainty for Americans across the country.
This act will curb monopolistic behavior that would gradually
strangle the internet. I am afraid of corporate takeover of the
internet.
My friend, the minority whip, spoke about how the Telecom Act of 1934
was passed to curb the monopolies of the large telephone corporations.
Today, the situation is similar. The ISPs are large, and they are
consolidating with content providers, a ripe situation for monopoly.
Americans hate monopolies.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1644.
Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1644,
the so-called Save the Internet Act.
This legislation seeks to restore the FCC's heavy-handed, stifling
title II regulations of 2015 to govern the internet, the same
antiquated regulations originally enacted to regulate wired phone
companies of the 1930s.
The internet, which is the single most important invention in modern
human history, has thrived precisely due to light-touch regulations.
Reinstating heavy-handed, stifling title II regulations on the internet
is just plain bad policy.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have supported these
stifling title II regulations to ensure what they call net neutrality
and prevent unreasonable discrimination practices of blocking,
throttling, and paid prioritization.
While I agree with my colleagues that no business should engage in
these types of unreasonable business practices, this bill is hardly
neutral. It blatantly ignores ``edge providers,'' such as Facebook and
Google. Just read the headlines about their great behavior. They have
made headlines for things like blocking, throttling, and requiring paid
prioritization of consumer internet services.
Additionally, in the 2 years following the FCC's 2015 order to
regulate the internet under the stifling title II, internet investments
regulations, those investments have actually declined for the first
time and only time in U.S. history outside of a recession.
As a Representative of some of the most unserved rural populations of
Virginia, I have heard from providers, both large and small, that these
stifling title II regulations have hindered their ability to expand
service to rural populations. This is particularly concerning, as
unserved areas already face extreme challenges to gaining access to
broadband. Reinstating these stifling title II regulations would only
further increase the digital divide between urban and rural America.
I am a cosponsor of three bills offered by Ranking Members Walden,
Latta, and Rodgers, all based on bipartisan approaches, which prohibit
the practices of blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. I
believe all three of these bills provide a bipartisan, permanent
solution to opening the internet.
I urge my Democratic colleagues to work with Republicans to solve
this issue.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, may I inquire how
much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 14\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
This debate can be broken down very simply. There is agreement on the
three bright lines. So Democrats and Republicans agree: no blocking, no
throttling, no paid prioritization. But that is where my friends on the
Republican side stop.
[[Page H3177]]
Democrats understand that, already, we see behavior by ISPs that
isn't covered by those three bright lines, in the areas of zero rating
and interconnection. There has to be a cop on the beat to protect
consumers.
This bill is very basic. It says we are going to outlaw the three
bright lines. We all agree with that.
The only things we do in addition to this are two other things:
Number one, we restore the legal underpinnings for the Connect
America program, which helps rural broadband, and the Lifeline program,
which helps our seniors, veterans, and low-income families in the
country. We make it easier for pole attachments to make rural
deployment of broadband easier to do, to facilitate that. So we take
care of rural America in the bill.
Then we also say there has to be someone to look out for consumers
if, somewhere down the road, an ISP finds a new way to have some unjust
or unreasonable or discriminatory behavior. Someone has to have the
ability to say: You can't do that, and, if you continue to do that, we
are going to levy a fine or we are going to take action against you.
{time} 1615
That is called consumer protection. What my friends over here want to
do is simply take the three bright lines and say, okay, we will enforce
that because they have been caught red-handed doing that. Everybody
knows they have pled guilty to the blocking, the throttling, and the
paid prioritization. We will outlaw that. But if they find some new,
novel way to game the system and disadvantage consumers, we don't want
anyone to be able to stop that kind of behavior.
Madam Chair, it is sort of like locking your front door and leaving
the back door wide open. That is what the Republicans would have us do,
if we would agree to their so-called compromise that they are putting
forward.
Let me tell you something. I didn't come to Congress to work for
internet service providers. I came to Congress to protect consumers.
And you are not fooling Americans. Eighty-six percent of Americans,
be they Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, did not want to see
the Pai FCC, the Trump FCC, repeal these net neutrality rules. There
was overwhelming testimony during the rulemaking from more than 20
million people asking the FCC not to take this action. This is an issue
not only amongst millennials but all throughout our population.
You have been hearing it on your telephones, too. That is why you all
want to say you are for something. You stand there and say we are for a
free and open internet, but what you are for is allowing these ISPs to
figure out new ways to game the system and making sure there is no cop
on the beat, the FCC, to be able to regulate that. That is why we are
never going to agree until we sit down and protect consumers in this
kind of bill.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to
the Chair.
Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is. I
have no more speakers.
Madam Chair, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In this debate today, we have heard both sides, but I really believe
that, on our side, the American people don't want to have a takeover of
the internet. As we have spoken on our side, we all believe in the same
things. We don't want throttling; we don't blocking; and we don't want
paid prioritization out there.
As has been stated already earlier today, we have had three bills
that were introduced, one being my piece of legislation that had been
introduced by the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee
that set forth those policies and also stating that it should not have
title II in it because, again, you do not want to have the heavy hand
of government coming in on this.
We had the Republican leader of the full committee with his
legislation, taking what the FCC has done and putting in legislation to
make sure, again, we don't have the blocking and the throttling.
The gentlewoman from Washington State, when you look at her
legislation, again, it came from a Democratic legislature, signed by a
Democratic Governor, which stated the same things: You don't want to
have the throttling, blocking, or paid prioritization.
The American people want to make sure that the internet is out there,
that it is working, and that you don't have that heavy hand.
I think it is also important, as has been noted during the debate--
what are we looking at here? We have had past FCC Chairmen all saying
the same thing, except for Chairman Wheeler when he changed and went
with the 2015 order. But Republicans and Democrats have all said the
same thing, that this is an information service, not a
telecommunications service that would be coming under the draconian
laws of the 1930s that were really to take care of the Ma Bells out
there.
We also have seen that this bill does not cover the edge providers,
and a lot of people would be surprised about that. The question is
raised: Why aren't they included in this piece of legislation? Because
if you want to make sure that everyone is included, you should have
been looking at it in this piece of legislation, because when you are
looking at the Facebook and the Twitters out there, what is happening
with them?
I also want to point out that I know there is some concern when this
was going on back in 2015 and what happened when the current FCC
rescinded the order. You know, the internet did not end. I did not get
calls the next day saying I was not able to go online. I wasn't unable
to do our work or do anything like that. I never received a call. So I
think it is important we note that.
At the same time, what we have also discussed here today, and also in
committee, is that we would like to see the 700 rules and the regs out
there that the FCC forbore on. We still don't have those. I have asked,
through my amendment, that we get those because I think it is important
we know what that is, because how do you know what they are doing if
you don't see it?
I think that it is very important that these facts are considered. I
think it is important that we have had this debate today. But I think
it is also important that we don't want to have a takeover by the
government of the internet because we want to make sure that it does
what it has always done. It is something that was formed out there that
had what they called a light touch to let it go forward, so I think it
is important that we do that.
For those reasons, Madam Chair, I would recommend a ``no'' vote on
H.R. 1644, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, how much time do I
have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
I appreciate this debate. A couple of points I would like to make as
we close. I think people need to understand that, 2 years ago, when the
Trump FCC decided to repeal the net neutrality rules that were in
place, what did they replace them with? How did they protect consumers
when they decided to repeal the net neutrality rules put in place by
Chairman Wheeler during the Obama administration? I will tell you what
they did. They did nothing--nothing, no protections, the Wild, Wild
West. The only thing a consumer could look forward to was, if one of
these ISPs violated their terms and conditions, they might be able to
go over to the FTC and ask for relief.
Ask the California firefighters how that worked for them when they
were in the middle of trying to put out these devastating fires in
California and came up on their data cap and had no recourse. Ask them
if they think that was unjust or unreasonable behavior.
For Republicans to stand here and say that they care about net
neutrality rules when they had 2 years when they controlled the House
and the Senate and the White House to put one of these three bills they
like to talk about on the floor--because they controlled the floor to
pass the bills, to
[[Page H3178]]
pass it in their Republican-controlled Senate and give it to their
Republican President to implement net neutrality rules to protect
consumers. What did they do? They did nothing--nothing, crickets,
silence.
Now Democrats control the House of Representatives. We said that it
is important to all Americans, and all Americans regardless--Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents--wanted to see those net neutrality rules
that were repealed restored. So what we have done is we have taken that
2015 open internet order and we said let's put this into law. Let's put
this into statute so that no future FCC Commissioner can come there and
change this.
We have forborne on 700 regulations that were in title II. You keep
hearing this: We are putting the heavy hand of title II, Ma Bell, 1934
rules on the internet. That is not true. All of those provisions of
title II were forborne. They are not part of this bill.
What did we keep in title II? We kept the consumer protections in
sections 201 and 202. We saved the legal underpinnings that make it
possible to do the Connect America Fund and the Lifeline Program. We
put a cop on the beat so that, for future bad behavior on the part of
the ISPs, there is someone there to say you can't do that, and if you
try to do that, we can take action against you.
Now, I ask you, what do the ISPs have to fear from that? If they are
not acting in an unjust or an unreasonable or a discriminatory fashion,
they have nothing to worry about.
I would ask my friends, what unjust and unreasonable and
discriminatory behavior do you think they should be allowed to engage
in?
Well, I have news for you. Just the three bright lines, that doesn't
cut it anymore. We have already seen behavior that is discriminatory
that isn't covered by those three bright lines. If there is no cop on
the beat to enforce that on behalf of consumers, then it is the
consumers who are the losers.
We are not going to let that happen. The American people don't want
that to happen. People of all stripes have said, loud and clear, that
they want to see commonsense, bipartisan net neutrality rules put into
place.
When I say bipartisan, the only place it isn't bipartisan is here in
the House of Representatives, not out in the country. The Senate passed
a similar bill last year in their CRA with 52 Members. It was
bipartisan.
We tried to put that CRA on the floor last year, and the Republican
majority wouldn't put the bill on the floor so that we could have a
vote on it. We tried a discharge petition to see if we could get the
bill on the floor, and not a single Republicans helped us pass the
discharge petition so that we could have a vote on net neutrality.
Let's not kid ourselves here. Any chance that Republicans had to have
no regulation on the internet, that is what they have been about when
they have been in power in this body.
Madam Chair, it is a new day, and it is a new House of
Representatives, one that listens to the will of the people, the
citizens of America who have said loud and clear that they want to see
these rules put back in place.
To all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is your chance
to be on the right side of history. This is your chance to be on the
side of the angels. I ask all my colleagues to vote for this bill, vote
``yes'' on H.R. 1644 and restore net neutrality rules for all
Americans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, as a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee and an original co-sponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R.
1644, the ``Save the Internet Act of 2019.''
The Save the Internet Act puts a cop on the beat to protect
consumers, small businesses, and competition from abusive practices of
internet service providers and codifies popular, bipartisan, and
targeted net neutrality protections.
An overwhelming 86 percent of Americans opposed the FCC's roll back
of the same protections that would be enacted by the Save the Internet
Act, including 82 percent of Republicans.
The Save the Internet Act mirrors the similar bipartisan
Congressional Review Act legislation that passed the Senate last
Congress and had 182 bipartisan signers in the House.
The Save the Internet Act restores necessary, common-sense provisions
for defending the internet put in place by the FCC during the Obama
Administration and stops the current Trump-dominated FCC from applying
more than 700 regulations under the Communications Act that are
unnecessary to protecting an open internet such as rate setting.
The Save the Internet Act represents true net neutrality protections
that are designed for today and tomorrow without loopholes.
The Save the Internet Act includes enhanced transparency protections,
and enacts specific rules against blocking, throttling, and paid
prioritization.
The legislation empowers the FCC to investigate consumer and business
complaints, and, when necessary, fine internet service providers for
violations of the Communications Act.
Additionally, the Save the Internet Act empowers the FCC to stop
internet service providers from undermining net neutrality principles
through new and harmful mechanisms.
Because of the Save the Internet Act, no longer will internet service
providers be able to exploit choke points online, such as
interconnection points, which creates bottlenecks and stifle internet
connectivity.
Another reason why all Members should support the Save the Internet
Act is because it provides important new authorities that can be used
to support broadband access and adoption for rural communities and
struggling Americans.
The Save the Internet Act also restores authorities the FCC used
starting in 2016 to fund broadband for low-income Americans, including
veterans, seniors, students, and disabled Americans, under the Lifeline
program that has subsidized phone service since the Reagan
Administration, but only began fully supporting internet access
recently.
Madam Chair, nothing in the Save the Internet Act would diminish
internet service providers' investments in broadband.
It should be noted that internet service providers did not cut back
on investing, deploying and increasing speeds in 2015 and 2016, when
the kind of protections the bill restores were put in place by the FCC.
In fact, after the Trump FCC repealed those protections, investments
by many of the largest providers went down despite their claims that
just opposite would happen.
Finally, Madam Chair, it should be noted the legislation before us
affirms several important principles and values, including the
following:
1. A free and open internet is the single greatest technology of our
time, and control should not be at the mercy of corporations.
2. A free and open internet stimulates internet service provider
competition.
3. A free and open internet helps prevent unfair pricing practices.
4. A free and open internet promotes innovation.
5. A free and open internet promotes the spread of ideas.
6. A free and open internet drives entrepreneurship.
In short, Madam Chair, a free, open, and vibrant internet protects
and strengthens our democracy.
I urge all Members to join me in voting to save the internet for all
of our people by voting to pass H.R. 1644, the ``Save the Internet Act
of 2019.''
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-10. That amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 1644
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 ``Save the Internet Act of
2019''.
SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF OPEN INTERNET ORDER.
(a) Repeal of Rule.--
(1) In general.--The Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order,
and Order in the matter of restoring internet freedom that
was adopted by the Commission on December 14, 2017 (FCC 17-
166), shall have no force or effect.
(2) Prohibition on reissued rule or new rule.--The
Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order described in
paragraph (1) may not be reissued in substantially the same
form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such
Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order may not be
issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically
authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(b) Restoration of Repealed and Amended Rules.--The
following are restored as in effect on January 19, 2017:
(1) The Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and
Order in the matter of protecting and promoting the open
internet
[[Page H3179]]
that was adopted by the Commission on February 26, 2015 (FCC
15-24).
(2) Part 8 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) Any other rule of the Commission that was amended or
repealed by the Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and
Order described in subsection (a)(1).
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(2) Restored as in effect on january 19, 2017.--The term
``restored as in effect on January 19, 2017'' means, with
respect to the Declaratory Ruling and Order described in
subsection (b)(1), to permanently reinstate the rules and
legal interpretations set forth in such Declaratory Ruling
and Order (as in effect on January 19, 2017), including any
decision (as in effect on such date) to apply or forbear from
applying a provision of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 151 et seq.) or a regulation of the Commission.
(3) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the meaning given such
term in section 804 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 3. EXCEPTION TO ENHANCEMENT TO TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS
RELATING TO PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS AND
NETWORK PRACTICES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
(a) In General.--The enhancements to the transparency rule
relating to performance characteristics and network practices
of the Commission under section 8.3 of title 47, Code of
Federal Regulations, as described in paragraphs 165 through
184 of the Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling,
and Order in the matter of protecting and promoting the open
internet that was adopted by the Commission February 26, 2015
(FCC 15-24), shall not apply to any small business.
(b) Sunset.--Subsection (a) shall not have any force or
effect after the date that is 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(c) Report by FCC.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a report that contains the
recommendations of the Commission (and data supporting such
recommendations) regarding--
(1) whether the exception provided by subsection (a) should
be made permanent; and
(2) whether the definition of the term ``small business''
for purposes of such exception should be modified from the
definition in subsection (d)(3).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Broadband internet access service.--The term
``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given
such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(3) Small business.--The term ``small business'' means any
provider of broadband Internet access service that has not
more than 100,000 subscribers aggregated over all the
provider's affiliates.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute is in order except those printed in part A of House Report
116-37. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Burgess
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 4. GAO REPORT ON INTERNET ECOSYSTEM.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to Congress a report examining the effect of the rules
described in section 2(b) on the virtuous cycle of the
internet ecosystem and whether such rules protect the access
of consumers to a free and open internet.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This amendment directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to submit to Congress a report examining the influence of all entities
on the virtuous cycle of the internet ecosystem and whether such rules
protect the access of consumers to a free and open internet.
A portion of a consumer's online experience is through social media
platforms and through other edge providers. Examples of this would
include Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube, among others.
{time} 1630
Nothing in the Save the Internet Act reviews all parts of the
internet ecosystem. Yet, so-called edge providers are the services
exercising the most discretion over content delivery.
As we saw last year with testimony in the Energy and Commerce
Committee from Facebook and Twitter, the algorithms written by these
companies are proprietary, and those proprietary algorithms may
manipulate consumer access. We understand the role of these service
providers and how each is weighted against the others. We have
transparency rules for broadband providers, but not for edge providers.
The bill targets broadband service providers by reclassifying them as
utilities under title II of the Communications Act, but we cannot
achieve effective net neutrality principles without including the
influence of edge providers on the internet ecosystem. For this reason,
the amendment simply directs the Government Accountability Office to
study the full internet ecosystem so that we can better understand the
influence of all online entities in order to protect access to a free
and open internet for every consumer.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Bass) assumed the chair.
____________________