[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 61 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3179-H3185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SAVE THE INTERNET ACT OF 2019

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Kaptur). Without objection, the gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield myself as 
much time as I may consume.
  The Save the Internet Act is narrowly focused on ISPs as the 
gatekeepers to the internet. They control the networks, so they have 
the ability to shape and control traffic as it moves over their 
network.
  Edge providers play a different role in the internet ecosystem and 
are not in the same class as internet service providers.
  There are numerous cases of documented abuses by ISPs going back 
several years. I am sure that is a big part of why net neutrality has 
such overwhelming bipartisan support. Even 82 percent of Republicans 
oppose the FCC's 2017 rollback of the rules.
  Now, that is not to say that there are not problems on the edge--
there are--but that is not what this bill is about.
  So in the spirit of bipartisanship, we are going to accept this 
amendment. We hear the concerns of Mr. Burgess and our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, and we want to work together with them to 
address this.
  We appreciate Mr. Burgess' willingness to work with us to find a 
compromise on this issue.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), the valuable ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Burgess) for his work on this amendment, and the Democrats for 
accepting this very thoughtful approach.
  Americans are more and more concerned about the role that tech 
companies play in this Information Age. You

[[Page H3180]]

read about how content gets blocked, gets prioritized, or in some cases 
allegedly shadow banned.
  We increasingly see these tech giants' inability to curb harmful and 
illicit behavior online while they monetize our personal information.
  Now, these are incredibly important platforms as well, they are great 
American companies, but in most cases, they come about as close to a 
monopoly as I have ever seen.
  Meanwhile, these edge providers get special protection under section 
230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and they are not covered by the 
net neutrality rules that we are discussing today. They are not covered 
at all.
  This bill does nothing to protect consumers from online abuses.
  When Republicans were in the majority, I personally presided over 
hearings with the heads of some of the most important tech companies in 
America. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Jack Dorsey of Twitter came 
before our committee, sat inside the Rayburn hearing room, and talked 
to us for hours.
  Our majority enacted landmark protections against online human sex 
trafficking that received the support of both sides of the aisle. We 
moved forward with that legislation. It is now law.
  Just as the internet has not stopped working from rescinding the 2015 
order, the internet has not stopped working because we enacted 
protections like FOSTA and SESTA. The internet still works.
  But more improvements can be made in how we bring responsibility to 
this sector of the internet. We should review all participants in the 
virtuous cycle of the internet ecosystem, and that is the aim of this 
amendment.
  The amendment calls on the Government Accountability Office to 
recommend solutions in dealing with edge providers, so they do not 
abuse their special privileges that the 1996 act gave them.
  This is our third revision of the amendment to make it acceptable to 
move forward with the majority. I certainly had hoped we wouldn't 
outsource this responsibility to the GAO over the FCC, not to mention 
the Energy and Commerce Committee and Congress, but I certainly believe 
we must make progress on this issue for the benefit of all American 
consumers and for the health of the overall internet ecosystem.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, we know the FCC 
does not have the authority to regulate the edge providers, and we know 
currently, since there are no net neutrality rules, the only recourse 
people have is to the FTC. Chairman Pai assured people that the FTC can 
fully police net neutrality.
  Well, here is a nice article: ``FTC gives ISPs green light to block 
applications as long as they disclose it.''
  So, there it is, ladies and gentlemen, these protections which you 
want to send over to the FTC, they have just now told the world that as 
long as they put it in their terms and conditions, they can block 
applications if they choose to do so.
  The gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Oregon, both friends, 
bring up valid concerns about edge providers, but this isn't the bill 
where it belongs. But we do want to work with them, and I look forward 
to engaging both of them and my good friend, the ranking member of the 
Communication and Technology Subcommittee, as we go forward to look 
into that part of the ecosystem.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, again, this bill targets broadband service 
providers by reclassifying them as utilities under title II of the 
Communications Act, but we cannot achieve net neutrality principles 
without including the influence of edge providers on the internet 
ecosystem.
  For this reason, the amendment simply directs the GAO to study the 
full ecosystem so that we can understand the influence of all online 
entities and, again, provide a free and open internet for every 
consumer.
  Madam Chair, I certainly want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee and thank the ranking member of the full committee for 
participating in this amendment discussion.
  Madam Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Latta

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 2.
  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. REPORT.

       Not later than 3 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Federal Communications 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 lists the 27 
     provisions of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the over 700 rules and regulations 
     referred to in paragraphs 5 and 37 of the Report and Order on 
     Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order described in section 
     2(b)(1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment that would 
require the Federal Communications Commission to provide a list of the 
700 rules and regulations it claims it forbore from in the 2015 Open 
Internet Order.
  This list will be provided to the Energy and Commerce Committee and 
the Senate Commerce Committee within 3 days of enactment of H.R. 1644.
  The need for this amendment arises out of the majority's claim that 
H.R. 1644 would lock in all provisions of law and regulations that the 
FCC forbore from applying to internet service providers in 2015.
  At that time, the FCC claimed it forbore from applying over 700 
regulations, but never made clear what 700 rules it was exempting ISPs 
from under title II.
  For broadband providers to know what regulations actually apply to 
them, they need to know what provisions of law the FCC forbore from.
  For the FCC to arrive at the number of over 700, it seems they must 
have analyzed the Code of Federal Regulations to determine which rules 
were applicable to broadband and which were not, but the FCC never made 
that list public.
  We have asked the majority on multiple occasions for help tracking 
down that list. Instead of helping locate it, the majority has doubled 
down on the public statements made by the Obama FCC quantifying that 
number.
  Now that H.R. 1644 might be passed by the House of Representatives, 
it is time to make it clear which rules of the road will not apply to 
broadband providers.
  H.R. 1644 already imposes enough uncertainty on broadband providers, 
because it would give the FCC broad authority under title II to 
regulate the internet beyond even the bright-line rules.
  If we cannot clear up that uncertainty before this bill gets passed, 
we should do all we can to let the public know what the bill does after 
it would become law.
  Unless we require the FCC to produce that list, we will never know 
what is in the bill.
  We must do better for the American public and provide more 
transparency to support broadband employment, investment, and growth.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, the overwhelmingly 
popular Save the Internet Act would restore the commonsense and much 
loved net neutrality protections adopted by the FCC's 2015 net 
neutrality order.
  These protections were comprehensive in addressing bad behavior, but

[[Page H3181]]

targeted so as not to be overly burdensome. The agency made sure that 
dated and unnecessary provisions of the Communications Act and certain 
implementing regulations did not apply to broadband internet service. 
In fact, the 2015 order says that more than 700 regulations would not 
apply to broadband.
  While the industry apparently didn't need the FCC to tell them what 
wasn't in the order, our Republican colleagues have raised a concern 
that more clarity is needed.
  Madam Chair, I don't remember the last time, however, that 
legislation was brought to the floor and concerns were raised about 
what the legislation didn't do and where we asked for an enumerated 
list of provisions the legislation didn't apply to.
  That being said, I support greater clarity. The gentleman's amendment 
would require the FCC to publish a list of all the provisions and 
regulations that were forborne by the 2015 order.
  Importantly, this wasn't an issue at all when these net neutrality 
protections were in place for nearly 3 years, but our Republican 
colleagues have raised a concern, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, 
we will support this amendment.
  Given that we are taking affirmative steps to address the concerns, 
we hope they will be persuaded to join us in supporting this immensely 
popular commonsense legislation.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the Republican leader of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I want to thank Mr. Latta for bringing this 
very thoughtful amendment to the House floor, and I want to thank my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who, I believe, agreed to 
accept it, if I heard that correctly.
  The bill would codify the forbearance of 700 regulations into law, as 
you probably heard, Madam Chair. However, we just don't know what those 
700 provisions that are being forborne upon are.
  We have repeatedly asked for that information in the subcommittee, in 
the full committee, and every step of the way.

                              {time}  1645

  In fact, I don't think the authors of this legislation could tell us 
today what those 700 provisions are, although they get referenced from 
time to time. We are told that is really the underpinning and crux of 
this legislation, that, in all these areas of law, the FCC said, ``We 
are not going to, basically, regulate in this area,'' and they said 
there are about 700 of these.
  So I think it does matter, if you are in business or just whatever 
you do in your life, to not know what the government--a pretty big, 
powerful government here in Washington--is going to enforce or not 
enforce or regulate or not regulate, and we don't know. But we are 
being asked today, in this bill, to enshrine in Federal law the whole 
700 of these that the FCC--not this one, not a future one, we are 
told--would ever regulate in.
  So we want the list. That is what this amendment asks for.
  But wouldn't it be better when we legislate to actually know what we 
are legislating on before we vote? That is a pretty simple concept in 
good legislating, I think, and that is why we repeatedly asked for it; 
and, obviously, we have not been able to get it, so it is a bit of an 
irony.
  Now, at the same time, they say don't worry because the FCC--you can 
trust us. The FCC is never going to regulate in this area. And, in 
fact, we are going to take these forbearances and lock them into 
statute and they can never come back and everything is locked down 
solid, boom. But that is like locking the front door of your house 
while you open the backdoor.
  And the backdoor is another part under title II. This is the argument 
on the floor today. It is not about blocking, throttling, or paid 
prioritization. You have heard us go back and forth, and we both agree. 
We can stop those bad behaviors, and we should, and that could become 
law. This bill will not become law.
  But they open the backdoor and say to the FCC: You have got the 
right, under sections 201 and 202, to basically do anything you want 
through a rulemaking. So all the agency has to do is do a rulemaking, 
and basically they can do everything they have done before and more.
  It is that uncertainty of regulation on the internet that we have 
referred to as the heavy-handed government. And this could be about 
taxing the internet, fees on the internet, et cetera, et cetera.
  So I am glad we are doing this amendment, and I am glad the majority 
is going to accept it. I only wish it were a list before us in the 
Record today, Madam Chair.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, how much time do I 
have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I am thrilled to 
get the gentleman this information. I know the FCC has it and will be 
happy to share it with him.
  It is kind of amusing that he wants to know what regulations we 
aren't putting on business. I thought they were the guys who didn't 
like any regulations on business. Now they are dying to know where are 
these 700 regulations that aren't going to be put in the bill.
  What is important about the bill is not what is not in the bill, but 
what is in the bill. That is what they need to focus on. This is kind 
of like Geraldo Rivera trying to open Al Capone's safe. They are just 
dying to know what those 700 regulations are.
  And guess what. We are going to pass this bill and vote with them on 
this, so that desire to know what isn't in the bill will finally be 
satisfied. I am sure that their Chairman, Chairman Pai, the current 
Chairman of the FCC, will be more than happy to hand them that list 
once we pass this bill. I will be happy to do that for our friends.
  We on the Democratic side support the amendment and intend to vote 
``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from 
Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Chair, I appreciate that from my good friend.
  If it were that easy to get that list, why didn't they get it for us 
from the Chairman of the FCC before we went through this whole process? 
We shouldn't have to vote on the bill to find out what is in it.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, reclaiming my 
time, I was just amazed that he didn't have the list already. That is 
his good friend over there, and I am sure a quick phone call on his 
point would have satisfied this curiosity he has.
  Madam Chair, I am happy to entertain this. I intend to vote ``yes'' 
on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Ms. WATERS. 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 IMPORTANCE OF OPEN INTERNET RULES TO 
                   VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--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 
     importance of the open internet rules to vulnerable 
     communities.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Open internet rules.--The term ``open internet rules'' 
     means the rules described in section 2(b).
       (2) Vulnerable communities.--The term ``vulnerable 
     communities'' means--
       (A) ethnic and racial minorities;
       (B) socioeconomically disadvantaged groups;
       (C) rural populations;
       (D) individuals with disabilities; and
       (E) the elderly.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) and a

[[Page H3182]]

Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1644, the Save the 
Internet Act. The Save the Internet Act is a simple and transparent 
piece of legislation that will restore the widely supported 2015 Open 
Internet Order rules and reinstate the consumer protections previously 
applied to industry by the Federal Communications Commission. I am 
proud to support the Save the Internet Act and thrilled to see Congress 
doing its job and protecting consumers once again.
  Across the United States, more than 129 million people are limited to 
a single provider for broadband internet access. Of those 129 million 
Americans, about 52 million must obtain internet access from a company 
that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and 
continues to undermine the policy today. This leaves over 177 million 
Americans, in primarily underserved communities, left without any 
market protection following the repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order.
  The FCC's repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order harmed all internet 
users, but it disproportionately hurt people of color in underserved 
communities. This is unacceptable, and Congress must fulfill its duty 
to represent and protect Americans' interests.
  My amendment would call on the Comptroller General and the Government 
Accountability Office to conduct a study on the importance of net 
neutrality and what access to the internet means to those in vulnerable 
communities. Specifically, it will examine the importance of net 
neutrality on the socioeconomically disadvantaged, individuals with 
disabilities, the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, and 
individuals from rural communities.
  By mandating that the study be conducted by the GAO, we can ensure 
that the data collected is transparent and free of political 
motivation. With this report, Congress will be able to decide for 
itself what the best course for it will be for the vulnerable consumer.
  Over 80 percent of Americans support net neutrality and agree that an 
open internet uplifts the voices of people of color, rural communities, 
socioeconomically disadvantaged, the elderly, and disabled. It is no 
coincidence that all these constituencies have joined together, 
alongside millions of individual internet users. An open internet 
levels the playing field and gives all Americans a better shot at 
prosperity and a better opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
  Madam Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support gathering critical 
information to help us improve connectivity for our most vulnerable 
Americans and to vote in the affirmative for my amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague, the gentlewoman's 
concern for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and the possible impact 
of the 2015 Open Internet Order on their ability to get connected 
online and have access to all the economic and social opportunities the 
internet has made possible. These are all very important questions to 
consider, and so I will not oppose this amendment.
  However, I hope my colleagues will consider just as much the 
possibility that throwing the internet into title II and all of the 
heavy-handed government regulation that it represents may not be the 
best way to address the concerns of these populations.
  We completely agree with the transformative impact of the internet on 
minorities, rural populations, individuals with disabilities, the 
elderly, and the socioeconomically disadvantaged. In many ways, the 
internet is even more important to these populations than to anyone 
else.
  So what would really help to bridge the digital divide and get more 
of these folks connected? I would argue what is most critical in this 
problem we are all trying to solve is, number one, to encourage 
investment.
  But you have heard me say it before, and I will say it again: Title 
II is a devastating investment killer. We saw those numbers take a dip 
after the FCC diverged from the longstanding bipartisan path of light-
touch regulation into the 1930s era monopoly regulation of title II.
  So what impact would the title II reclassification have on the 
disadvantaged and vulnerable populations we are talking about with this 
amendment? How will it impact future deployment that could connect 
them? Maybe we should also have the GAO looking into that.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I thank my friend 
for yielding.
  Madam Chair, during our committee's hearing on net neutrality in the 
Save the Internet Act, we heard testimony about the importance of a 
free and open internet to vulnerable populations and groups 
underrepresented in the traditional media. The message was clear:
  Net neutrality protections are critical to vulnerable populations.
  Net neutrality is critical for minority communities to have their 
stories told. It is a lifeline to connecting with job training, 
employment searches, and family connections.
  Net neutrality is important for ensuring that small businesses or 
aspiring writers can use the internet to find customers and fan bases 
across the country or across the globe.
  Madam Chair, this is an important issue, and I fully support the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Delgado

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Mr. DELGADO. 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:

       At the end of the bill insert the following:

     SEC. 4. GAO REPORT ON BENEFITS OF STANDALONE BROADBAND.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall transmit 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 assesses the benefits to consumers of broadband internet 
     access service being offered on a standalone basis (and not 
     as part of a bundle with other services) by providers of 
     broadband internet access. Such report shall include 
     recommendations for legislation to increase the availability 
     of standalone broadband internet access service to consumers, 
     particularly those living in rural areas.
       (b) Definition.--As used in subsection (a), the term 
     ``provider of broadband internet access'' means a provider of 
     broadband internet access, as such term is defined in section 
     8.2 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Delgado) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I want to first thank my colleague, Chairman Doyle, for 
his leadership on this bill.
  The Save the Internet Act restores critical net neutrality 
protections that the FCC repealed last year. This legislation is 
necessary to hold on firm legal ground the net neutrality principles we 
should all support: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid 
prioritization.
  While ensuring a free and open internet is of the utmost importance, 
so, too, is ensuring broadband internet access for all. In fact, 
according to the FCC's 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, nearly 
one in four Americans lack access to broadband internet service at 
home.
  As a proud Representative of one of the most rural congressional 
districts in the country, I cannot overstate what

[[Page H3183]]

a huge problem this is. Individuals and small businesses in my district 
still lack access to stand-alone broadband internet because of high 
service costs, a lack of broadband infrastructure, and outdated and 
unreasonable bundling practices that require consumers to purchase a 
home telephone service or a cable package as a condition for purchasing 
broadband internet service.

                              {time}  1700

  In today's global economy, broadband shouldn't come with any strings 
attached. That is why my amendment would give GAO 1 year to report to 
Congress on the benefits to consumers of making broadband internet 
service available to everyone on a standalone basis.
  Additionally, it would include recommendations to Congress on ways to 
increase the availability of stand-alone broadband internet service to 
consumers, particularly those living in rural areas.
  Consumers increasingly don't want to buy big cable bundles. They just 
want access to the internet. That is why I urge support for this 
amendment and for the underlying bill.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague's interest, the 
gentleman's interest in stand-alone broadband. As he knows, this is a 
really important issue, especially in rural America, and one that the 
FCC has spent considerable time on, in fact, one that I have spent 
considerable time on as one of the co-chairs of the Rural Broadband 
Caucus.
  So I do not oppose this amendment, but I want to observe here that 
this amendment will not do anything to relieve the smallest ISPs found 
in the most rural areas from some of the worst excesses of this bill.
  So I must say, I am disappointed that our friends in the majority 
refuse to give us a vote on my amendment, which would have included the 
language on small businesses that was passed unanimously by the House 
in the last two Congresses.
  This amendment was exactly the same as the one that the Democrats 
have agreed--twice--to tie to the original 2015 order. It would have 
extended the exemption for small ISPs from the Obama FCC's enhanced 
transparency rule for 5 years and expanded the exemption to include 
businesses with 250,000 subscribers or fewer.
  I am supportive of protecting the consumers of small ISPs, but these 
enhanced disclosures placed an unnecessary regulatory burden on small 
businesses and distracted them from working to bring broadband internet 
access to customers across the country, especially those in rural 
America.
  My colleagues in the majority seem supportive of the plight of the 
small, rural ISPs but could not support this amendment at 
subcommittee--even though they had voted to support it twice before. 
Instead, they asked us to find yet another bipartisan agreement on an 
issue that we have already spent hours negotiating and have already 
found common ground.
  We held up our end of the bargain, even as we walked away from the 
deal that they agreed to twice before and proceeded to dig in on terms 
of the FCC's 2015 order instead.
  Although time has passed since the Small Business Broadband 
Deployment Act, H.R. 4596, passed the House unanimously in the 114th 
Congress with a vote of 411-0 and was reintroduced in the 115th 
Congress and passed on voice vote as H.R. 288, the need still exists to 
promote the continued deployment of broadband and prevent small ISPs 
from becoming burdened with additional requirements that make it more 
difficult to do what they are in business to do. In fact, based on our 
hearings in the past Congress and some of the statements on the floor 
today, I think it is safe to say there is bipartisan consensus on the 
need to support rural broadband for consumers.
  As a reminder, my amendment would not have let small ISPs skirt 
transparency. Instead, they would follow the less onerous transparency 
rules adopted by the FCC in 2010. So consumers would still have access 
to the information needed to make informed decisions about their 
internet service, and ISPs could focus on providing service rather than 
cumbersome regulatory requirements.
  I believe my friends across the aisle when they say they care about 
expanding broadband in rural America and closing the digital divide. 
Although, if they truly cared as much as they claim to, I would have 
expected my amendment to be made in order and to be adopted unanimously 
as it has been by the House in the past.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Communications and Technology.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado), my friend.
  You know, the FCC does need to do more to support the funding of 
stand-alone broadband, particularly for rural areas, and this amendment 
will help push them to do that.
  The Save the Internet Act would restore many of the key authorities 
the FCC can use to fund rural broadband deployment in the future. It is 
really hard to understate how important that is for rural America, and 
this amendment would help us do even more.
  This amendment would simply require the GAO to study the benefits of 
stand-alone broadband plans and how we in Congress can increase the 
availability of these stand-alone plans in rural areas of the country 
where broadband is so hard to come by.
  I support this amendment. It is a wonderful addition to a bill that 
would restore net neutrality to everyone across this country and help 
support rural broadband build-out as well.
  Madam Chair, I look forward to working with the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, we do not oppose the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Once again, I would like to thank Chairman Doyle for introducing this 
critical legislation and urge Members on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I demand a 
recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Porter

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Ms. PORTER. 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. REPORT BY FCC ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Federal Communications 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 describes all 
     enforcement actions taken by the Commission under the rules 
     described in section 2(b) since such date of enactment, 
     including the amount of each fine imposed or settlement 
     agreed to, the actions taken by the Commission to collect 
     such fines and settlements, and the amounts of such fines and 
     settlements collected.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Porter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PORTER. Madam Chair, the Save the Internet Act of 2019 empowers 
the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, to enforce net 
neutrality, protect consumers, and assist them with complaints against 
their internet service providers.

[[Page H3184]]

  The FCC can fine internet service providers when they break the 
rules. However, simply issuing fines to a bad actor isn't enough to 
change the behavior of those bad actors. Those fines need to be 
collected. Corporations that break the law must pay.
  My amendment would require the FCC to report to Congress within 1 
year on the number of enforcement actions it has taken against internet 
service providers that violate net neutrality. Importantly, that report 
must include both the fines imposed and the amounts collected.
  The FCC must act as a cop on the beat when internet service providers 
misbehave, protecting consumers and keeping the internet free and open 
to all.
  When the FCC finds a bad actor, that fine should be paid by the 
company. If the FCC is not following through on protecting consumers, 
Congress should know so it can take oversight action, if necessary.
  The FCC failing to collect fines is a real concern. Recently, The 
Wall Street Journal has highlighted the extent of the problem.
  While the FCC has imposed record fines on robocallers--$208 million--
it has collected less than $7,000 since 2015. That is 0.003 percent of 
the fines imposed.
  When everyday Americans get a parking ticket or a traffic violation, 
the government makes sure that they pay their fines. Corporations must 
be held accountable as well.
  As we vote to restore a free and open internet, we should also vote 
to provide oversight of the agency tasked to protect consumers.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I agree with the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Porter), my colleague, that FCC enforcement is important in any 
area that the agency regulates, and that is why we will not oppose this 
amendment.
  That is also why we in the majority have asked, at several hearings, 
when we were going to have our first FCC oversight hearing this 
Congress. We are 4 months into this Congress, and the majority has yet 
to bring the FCC before the committee to answer questions relating to 
its past enforcement efforts on ISPs, the impact of this legislation, 
and other topics pending at the FCC.
  This is an issue that could have gained by having the FCC before the 
committee rather than the topic being delegated to a report that does 
not pertain to the base bill.
  This is also an issue that could have gained from bipartisan 
negotiations. All three Republican net neutrality bills would have the 
FCC oversee ISP practices and enforce net neutrality to keep a free and 
open internet.
  There is more agreement here than the majority would have you 
believe. There is also a role for the FCC to have in overseeing net 
neutrality and maintaining a free and open internet, and there should 
be clear net neutrality rules on the book.
  Where we disagree is on giving the FCC unchecked powers to regulate 
the internet and determine on its own what is just and reasonable. That 
is not net neutrality.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PORTER. Madam Chair, I just want to clarify that this amendment 
doesn't define the power that the FCC would have to regulate, but would 
merely make sure that, when it does take action, the companies are held 
accountable for the fines that are imposed.
  I appreciate that my colleague from the other side of the aisle does 
not oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding.
  The important protections we are discussing today will only be a 
toothless tiger if the FCC is not taking action to investigate 
potential violations and taking enforcement action where it is 
warranted.
  The great thing about this amendment is that the FCC will have to 
come back to us 1 year after the Save the Internet Act is adopted and 
tell us what kinds of investigations and enforcement actions they have 
undertaken.
  It also shines a light on whether the FCC follows through with its 
enforcement actions. As we just heard, recently, it was reported that 
even though the FCC fined robocallers $208 million, it only collected 
$7,000.
  Remind me not to use them as my collection agent.
  Rules aren't a deterrent unless there are real consequences. This 
amendment will help Congress determine if the FCC is truly doing its 
job and better facilitate the critical oversight role of this body.
  I fully support this amendment, and I look forward to getting this 
report.
  Ms. PORTER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Wexton

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Ms. WEXTON. 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. PLAN RELATING TO FORM 477 DATA COLLECTION.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall submit 
     to Congress a report containing a plan for how the Commission 
     will evaluate and address problems with the collection on 
     Form 477 of data regarding the deployment of broadband 
     Internet access service (as defined in section 8.2 of title 
     47, Code of Federal Regulations).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Ms. Wexton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Ms. WEXTON. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, which 
would require the FCC to submit to Congress a plan for how the 
Commission will evaluate and address problems with the collection on 
form 477 of data regarding the deployment of broadband internet access 
service.
  Form 477 is used by the FCC to determine which providers are--if 
any--providing services in various areas, and it is the government's 
main source of data used for identifying underserved areas of 
opportunity.
  This amendment is needed because it has been more than 20 months--or 
almost 2 years--since the FCC originally sought comment on ways to 
improve the value of the data they collect through form 477.
  Having better data and the creation of improved maps is essential to 
ensuring that service providers and government have the tools that we 
need to truly make universal broadband internet access a reality.
  Too many residents of my district, and many other districts as well, 
lack affordable or any broadband internet access. This untenable 
situation is only made worse by maps and data charts that don't 
accurately reflect this experience of our constituents on the ground.
  Consumers should not bear the responsibility or burden of reporting 
on an issue that the FCC and service providers should actively be 
working to address.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I am pleased to see the Democrats bring so 
many ideas today as it comes to rural broadband, and because of that, 
we will not oppose this amendment.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) on our committee has been a 
strong advocate of improving the 477 data at the FCC and how to have 
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the 
NTIA, more engaged in mapping by aggregating resources across the 
Federal Government. He was part of an effort

[[Page H3185]]

last fall that shared a draft reauthorization of NTIA with the 
Democrats that would have helped get more granular information. 
Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle put down 
their pens on this effort.
  In our markup last week, Mr. Johnson offered an amendment that was 
voted down by the majority that would have eased the title II albatross 
from small rural carriers. Sadly, this was rejected. Coincidentally, we 
saw a number of the Democratic amendments made in order to study the 
problems of rural broadband deployment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WEXTON. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  The Save the Internet Act is going to ensure that net neutrality 
throughout this country is ensured, and, hopefully, it is going to 
bring the internet to all parts of this country. It will do that, in 
part, by restoring the legal authority of section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act, which gives the FCC authority to take immediate 
action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers 
to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the 
telecommunications market.
  The FCC's 477 data is critical for getting an accurate picture of 
broadband deployment in this country, but the methods of collecting 
that data are outdated, and the results are sometimes rife with errors.
  This amendment calls upon the FCC to submit a report within 30 days 
of enactment, detailing how it plans to evaluate and address problems 
with the collection of that form 477 data.
  We have already seen how inaccurate Commission data can lead to poor 
policy choices, whether it is holding up the Mobility Fund II 
proceedings, which will fund the deployment of wireless broadband in 
rural communities, or rendering inaccurate the Commission's recent 
draft broadband deployment report, which drastically overstated 
deployment in this country due to lax and faulty data collection 
methods.
  I fully support this amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Ms. WEXTON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, the American people deserve an internet and FCC that 
works for them. By supporting this amendment and requesting an update 
regarding form 477 and the data collected thereby from the FCC, 
Congress can hold the FCC accountable in their mission to promote 
competition, innovation, and most importantly, investment in broadband 
services and facilities.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I demand a 
recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I move that the 
Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Wexton) having assumed the chair, Ms. Kaptur, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1644) to 
restore the open internet order of the Federal Communications 
Commission, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________