[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.
____________________