[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.

                          ____________________