[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 10, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3224-H3239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAVE THE INTERNET ACT OF 2019
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stanton). Pursuant to House Resolution
294 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 1644.
Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Cisneros) kindly take the
chair.
{time} 0915
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1644) to restore the open internet order of the Federal
Communications Commission, with Mr. Cisneros (Acting Chair) in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
April 9, 2019, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 6 printed
in House Report 116-37 offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms.
Wexton) had been postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Davids of Kansas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment.
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 BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE
COMPETITION.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General 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--
(1) examines the efforts by the Federal Communications
Commission to assess competition for providers of broadband
Internet access service (as defined in section 8.2 of title
47, Code of Federal Regulations) in the market;
[[Page H3225]]
(2) describes how the Commission can better assess
competition; and
(3) includes a description of the steps, if any, the
Commission can take to better increase competition among
providers of broadband Internet access service (as defined in
section 8.2 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations) in the
market.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentlewoman
from Kansas (Ms. Davids) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kansas.
Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment to the Save the Internet Act that helps the American
consumer.
This amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to
produce a report examining the FCC's efforts to assess competition in
the wireline and wireless broadband internet access markets, and to
tell us how the FCC can better assess competition in the future.
Driving competition in the telecommunications industry is good for
innovation, consumer pricing, and availability of service. It only
makes sense then that we should receive an accurate assessment of the
FCC's current efforts to promote that competition and to ask the GAO
how they might do it better.
I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment itself.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I support the goal of this amendment in
assessing the broadband marketplace and how the government can increase
competition, lower prices, and improve the quality of service. This is
a worthy subject for GAO to look into, and I think we can gain valuable
insights.
This is something we could have approved in the Energy and Commerce
Committee had it been brought to us, but we accept it here on the
floor.
But if we were really looking for ways to increase competition, Mr.
Chairman, in the wireless broadband marketplace, then I am baffled why
Democrats did not find the need to examine how 5G networks will be
severely threatened by their bill.
Numerous reports from entities not even in the tech space indicate
that title II, this overreaching government takeover and the incredible
power being given to the FCC to take charge of the internet, presents
serious challenges to 5G deployment and its amazing potential for
technical improvements.
These reports come from Barclays, which focuses on investment and
banking, Oracle, and even the IEEE, which is the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, so it is not a bunch of
politicians talking about this, Mr. Chairman. These are certified smart
people, otherwise known as the real engineers, that we went to.
To quote their analysis, ``5G networks face the challenge of being
developed in a context of high uncertainty, where most of the services
that underpin 5G business models appear to be unlawful under current
rules.''
One example of the efficiencies that can be realized in a 5G network
is network slicing which will allow operators to provide different
services with different performance characteristics to address specific
use cases. Because 5G is being designed for a wider range of use cases
than prior technologies, it is critical that quality of service
management be employed.
Applying net neutrality to these new 5G networks would cripple the
performance of this incredible new technology.
Mr. Guthrie, a Republican from Kentucky, offered an amendment to
address our serious concerns about the impact of the Democrats' bill on
5G, but that amendment to preserve the growth of 5G was not given an
opportunity to be part of today's vote. Sadly, we can't even debate it.
It is not here.
New 5G wireless networks will not only one day support apps and web
pages, and texts, and chats, and video streams, but will also support a
wide range of new technologies, from autonomous vehicles, augmented
reality, innovations in healthcare delivery and education, to all other
kinds of new advances, Mr. Chairman.
These new innovations, let alone the innovations beyond 5G to come,
would be simply impossible, we now believe, and I think others believe
independent of us, with these heavy-handed proposals that will result
from title II power being given to bureaucrats in Washington. That is
what the underlying bill would do.
It is worth remembering that until 2015, the Federal Communications
Commission treated wireless networks differently when regulating net
neutrality, because it did not want to impede the growth of a nascent
technology. If we were to apply that same logic today, we should not
burden developing 5G networks with onerous and outdated regulations, as
these 5G networks are even more in their infancy than wireless was back
in 2010, Mr. Chairman.
So we need to make sure that we don't handicap this next generation
of technology with rules designed for rotary telephones that could
cause us to delay or lose a global race to widely deploy 5G.
Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks. I support the underlying
amendment, the Davids amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for
this outstanding complementary amendment to a very important issue.
I am, I believe, very much supportive, and I am supportive of the
idea of the GAO producing a report examining the FCC's efforts to
assess competition. That is an important record that we in the Congress
need, and it complements the Save the Internet Act which represents
true net neutrality protections that are designed for today and
tomorrow without loopholes.
The Save the Internet Act includes enhanced transparency protections
and enacts specific rules against blocking, throttling, and paid
prioritization.
Additionally, the Save the Internet Act empowers the FCC to stop
internet service providers from undermining the net neutrality
principles through new and harmful mechanisms, but we want to work with
those providers.
My colleague just mentioned 5G. Nothing that we do here is going to
inhibit, I believe, the opportunity for us to work together.
Ms. Davids' amendment is a vital and important contribution to the
idea of competition, and the idea of serving your area, and making sure
that we understand how the competition is increased in wireline and
wireless broadband internet access to many markets.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I support her amendment, and I
support the underlying bill, which is the Save the Internet Act, and I
thank Mr. Doyle for his leadership over the years in this legislation.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other speakers, I don't
believe. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding.
It is interesting to hear my good friend talk about 5G. When the
majority talks about government control of the internet, they should
turn their eyes to the White House and the President's plan to
nationalize 5G.
The only socialist plan to take over the internet is the one coming
from the Trump administration and their plan to nationalize 5G. I have
documents for the Record talking about numerous articles where the
Trump administration proposes to nationalize 5G, and the plan coming
from the administration to secure 5G.
The gentleman keeps saying that this bill is a government takeover of
the internet, but the only government takeover I see is the one that
the White House keeps proposing.
Now, the amendment that is before us would ask the GAO to examine how
the FCC assesses competition, including making recommendations on how
to improve their assessment and how to increase competition in these
vital markets. This is a key question for so
[[Page H3226]]
many consumer protections online, not just net neutrality.
This bill is about consumers, small business, and democratic values
like competition. This is a good amendment. I support this amendment,
and I urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I would recommend that my friend from Pennsylvania read
this Barclays piece on what the bill likely could do to diminish the
growth in 5G build-out, which I include in the Congressional Record.
[From Barclays, U.S. Cable, Telecom & Internet, March 25, 2019]
Net Neutrality: Blunt Tool for a Fast-Changing Ecosystem
More heat than light in present Net Neutrality debate:
While Net Neutrality and related issues have evoked strong
passions since the early 2000s, very little of the discussion
has evolved despite significant technological and economic
shifts. The issue has come back into focus with House
Democrats introducing a new bill to reinstate the 2015
Internet Order which was repealed by the FCC post the
election of President Trump. The issue is also making its way
through the courts with 20+ states and tech companies
predictably suing against the FCC's repeal. Therefore, this
issue is likely to remain in the headlines especially given
elections next year.
Reinstating 2015 Open Internet Order may make it tough to
realize full potential of 5G: We believe that Net Neutrality
formulations as proposed in Congress are blunt tools to deal
with a fast-changing technological landscape. The entire
premise of 5G is the ability to enable different network
capabilities for different applications. The 5G standards
development body, 3GPP, has outlined three major use cases
for the technology: enhanced Mobile Broadband, Massive IoT,
and ultra-reliable low latency. While all three are likely to
be used for consumer-facing applications, two of the three
major use cases are also being targeted at industrial users.
Dimensions of data use will also be more varied than just
speed or volume. Some applications will need to transmit
small amounts of data at constant periods (e.g. smart meters)
while others will need bursts of high bandwidth consuming
traffic (e.g. fixed wireless). Therefore, if implemented, the
2015 Open Internet Order framework (ban on paid
prioritization and throttling) without accounting for
emerging technological capabilities and applications is
likely to become a roadblock to 5G monetization.
Title II could have a bigger operational impact than Net
Neutrality: While the Open Internet Order has implications
for future business models, if adopted as law, a more
immediate concern for Internet service providers will be the
push to redefine broadband as a Title II service.
Operationally, this could constrain the degrees of freedom
around variables such as pricing a lot more than the Open
Internet Order itself.
Overall, while the need for some framework on Net
Neutrality is agreed to by both sides of the political
divide, the current set of proposals are, in our view,
inadequate with material limitations on future business
models. The issue requires a comprehensive look at the entire
value chain including the edge, but divided regulatory
jurisdictions and a split Congress make this difficult to
achieve. Therefore, for now, we believe the issue will be
resolved by courts and is likely be a headline risk for
telecom and cable companies.
While Net Neutrality evokes strong passions politically,
very little of the discussion has evolved despite significant
technological and economic shifts. We believe that Net
Neutrality formulations as they exist today are blunt tools
to deal with a fast-changing technological landscape.
For instance, the entire premise of 5G is the ability to
enable different network capabilities for different
applications. The 5G standard development body has outlined
three major use cases for the technology. enhanced Mobile
Broadband (eMBB), Massive IoT (mIoT) and ultra-reliable low
latency (URLLC). While all three are likely to be used for
consumer facing applications, two of the three major use
cases are also being targeted at industrial users (mIoT and
URLLC). Data use across these applications is likely to be
quite varied. For instance, smart meters will need to
transmit small amounts of data at constant periods while
consumer broadband works on bursts of high bandwidth
consuming traffic such as video. Applications such as
autonomous cars and remote surgery may value lower latency
and higher edge computing capacity compared to, for example,
checking email or watching video.
This is quite different from previous generations of
wireless standards which thus far have been largely focused
on consumer applications. The way Congress appears to be
looking at Net Neutrality today or the way the FCC has looked
at this in the past would effectively result in operators
being forced to provide the same level of service to every
application which will not only result in waste but also
limit the impact of 5G. In fact, if the promise of 5G is
realized the way it has been outlined by operators globally,
the whole meaning of what a telecom `service' means (is it
latency? is it speed? it is edge compute?) and how it is
measured is likely to change meaningfully.
Some conditions included in the 2015 Order such as paid
prioritization and throttling could in theory make it
impossible to deploy and monetize some of the features that
make 5G a bigger shift than prior generations. In a 5G world,
this would make it impossible in theory to prioritize latency
for, as an example, a driverless car versus somebody watching
Netflix. Of course regulators can fine-tune these definitions
but that is not what the House bill seeks to do. It
effectively passes this judgment to an administrative body--
the FCC. Given that FCC decisions on this issue have been
split along political affiliations of the Commissioners,
every regime at the FCC could make opposing decisions making
the implementation of any policy next to impossible. This
opens up the entire issue to a lot of uncertainty which is
likely to limit the ability of service providers to formulate
go-to-market plans for 5G.
We also believe that the Net Neutrality framework as of
today (no prioritization, no blocking and no throttling) is
without any nuance to deal with what might be legitimate and
consumer-friendly use cases. For instance, Netflix alone
consumes cents19% of downstream bandwidth
(wireless and wired) in the US today. In the early days of
cable, when bandwidth in the cable pipe was limited due to
analog signals, content networks had to pay cable companies
for carriage. This allowed a market-based mechanism for
viable networks to effectively `buy' bandwidth and scale
their services based on how widely they were distributed.
Netflix however doesn't have to worry about this dynamic. It
can make its technology decisions independent of the
investment needs of the network. In theory, Netflix can
decide to stream all its videos in 4K and suck up even more
bandwidth, which will be to the detriment of other
applications on the Internet and force cable and wireless
companies to increase their network investment. At the same
time, cable companies will have to deal with broadband price
monitoring by the FCC (which the 2015 Open Internet Order
enables), limiting their ability to pass through price to the
consumer or to Netflix (due to a ban on paid prioritization).
Overall, while the need for some framework on Net
Neutrality is unquestionable, the move by the House to just
pass the buck back to the FCC to deal with the details is not
the right answer in our opinion. This needs a legislative
solution on the scale of the 1996 Telecommunications Act but
this is almost impossible in the current environment. As a
result, we believe this issue is likely to remain unresolved
for a long time to come. Near-term, however, if this
legislation were to pass, it could have a bigger impact on
wireless 5G plans than on wireline operators.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I would also point out, actually, that the
bill would regulate 5G. We had a vote in committee to prevent that from
happening, and every Democrat on the committee voted to regulate 5G
through this legislation and give the FCC that authority, and every
Republican voted the other way, because we actually vote for open and
free internet and markets.
I know that the gentleman, my friend, was pretty busy when the
President's people made their statement. I commented that day that I
didn't think that was a good approach. So I have been on record, and I
think most of my colleagues have as well. That is kind of an argument
that, Mr. Chairman, I don't think holds much water.
What we do know is, we are legislating today, and the Democrats'
legislation will regulate 5G, and the people who evaluate the effect of
that say that is going to harm development, rollout, and probably
investment as well.
Mr. Chair, the underlying amendment is good, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Davids).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Stanton
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, 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. ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH IN INDIAN COUNTRY REGARDING
THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING THE UNIQUE
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE CHALLENGES.
(a) Engagement With Tribal Communities to Address Broadband
Internet Access
[[Page H3227]]
Service Needs.--Not later than 3 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission
shall engage with and obtain feedback from Tribal
stakeholders and providers of broadband Internet access
service (as defined in section 8.2 of title 47, Code of
Federal Regulations) on the effectiveness of the Commission's
obligation to consult with Indian Tribes to determine whether
the Commission needs to clarify the Commission's Tribal
engagement statement and ensure accessible and affordable
broadband Internet access service (as defined in section 8.2
of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations) in the Tribal lands
and areas through the engagement and outreach.
(b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) According to an estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau,
just 53% of Native Americans living on Tribal lands have
access to high-speed internet service.
(2) The Government Accountability Office has found that the
Federal Communications Commission data has overstated
broadband availability and access on Tribal lands in the
United States.
(3) A Federal court recently vacated a Federal
Communications Commission order that limited Federal
subsidies for wireless providers serving Tribal lands.
(4) The United States Government, industry, and non-
governmental organizations should do more to identify and
address the unique broadband access challenges faced by
individuals living on reservations and Tribal lands.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Stanton) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, access to high-speed internet is
absolutely essential in today's economy. It is the key component to our
Nation's innovation infrastructure.
Yet, on Tribal lands across this country, a digital divide exists.
According to the estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 53 percent
of Native Americans living on Tribal lands have access to high-speed
internet, compared to 82 percent of households nationally.
A recent report by the Government Accountability Office examined how
the Federal Communications Commission collects, validates, and uses
data on broadband availability. It found that the FCC overstates the
availability of broadband internet service on Tribal lands.
For example, if a service provider reports that it could provide
broadband service internet access to at least one location in a census
block, the FCC considers broadband to be ``available'' in that census
block. That doesn't make much sense, and the GAO agreed.
It found that the FCC's available status is applied too broadly,
sometimes including communities without infrastructure that connects
homes to a service provider's network.
It also found that the FCC does not collect information on factors
such as affordability, quality, and denials of service. FCC data that
accurately captures the availability of broadband is critical because
the Federal Government relies on the data to make important
investments.
Without accurate data, the Federal Government will have difficulties
identifying the true needs and cannot make appropriate investments.
Part of the challenge in the lack of reliable data stems from the lack
of meaningful consultation and engagement with Tribal Nations.
Tribal consultation is more than just checking a box. It is important
for the FCC to not only listen to Tribes, but to actively engage and
learn from them. Only by doing so will we be better able to get
information on where the needs are. That will lead to better decisions
and better outcomes.
My amendment would implement one of the GAO's recommendations. It
would direct the FCC to seek feedback from Tribal stakeholders and
providers on the effectiveness of its Tribal consultation, as well as
ensure accessible and affordable broadband on Tribal lands.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0930
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I share similar concerns to Mr. Stanton
about promoting broadband deployment on Tribal lands. I have visited a
number of reservations around the country, including in Arizona, as
well as, of course, in my own State of Oregon and elsewhere.
This is a big issue, and the data are not complete. I agree with you
that we need to do better. In fact, that is true, and I think we would
all agree that the data the FCC gets, has, and uses has been a problem
for a very long time. We have to get better so that when we allocate
these funds to do the build-out and everything else, we are getting
funds to the people who really need them. That is especially a problem
with our Native American friends.
In fact, while I was presiding over the Energy and Commerce Committee
last Congress, we accomplished landmark legislation with the enactment
of RAY BAUM'S Act. That reauthorized the FCC, and it included language
to improve services on Tribal lands, Mr. Chairman.
We need to make sure that the policies we impose on the internet
support broadband deployment, especially deployment in Tribal, rural,
and very rural areas. Oftentimes, the Tribal areas consist of rural
areas where we have very small internet service providers providing
access to the internet, and they are desperately trying to find funding
to expand their service footprint.
I was a small business owner with my wife for more than 20 years. I
will tell you, you are trying to grow your small business, and then the
government comes in and says: Oh, we want more information. We want
more requirements. And we are going to regulate you more.
Mr. Chairman, all that does is take your money and your plan to
invest and diverts it. You don't get to do as much as you had planned
to do. That is why I supported an amendment to the underlying bill that
would have specifically protected a small business from the heavy hand
of overreporting.
That amendment would have included the language of my bill on small
businesses that was passed unanimously by the House in each of the last
two Congresses--unanimously, right here on this floor. It would have
extended the exemption for small ISPs from President Obama's FCC's
enhanced transparency rules for 5 years and expanded the exemption to
include businesses with 250,000 subscribers or less.
This was based on a bipartisan compromise that the FCC's original
exemption was not enough to protect small ISPs. We all agreed to that.
We negotiated that and twice passed that unanimously in the House.
I agree that all consumers should be protected, but the enhanced
transparency rules could deter broadband from being deployed further on
Tribal lands and reaching consumers in the first place. That is because
these enhanced disclosures place an unnecessary regulatory burden on
small businesses and distract them from working to bring broadband
internet access to customers across the country, especially on Tribal
lands.
As a reminder, my amendment would not have let ISPs skirt
transparency. It did not do that. We are just talking about really
costly reporting requirements. Instead, they would follow the less
onerous transparency rules adopted by the FCC back in 2010 so consumers
would still have access to information needed to make informed
decisions about their internet service, and ISPs could focus on
providing service rather than cumbersome regulatory requirements.
There is bipartisan consensus in improving broadband deployment to
Tribal lands and, I think, our rural areas and our urban areas that are
underserved. But it seems my colleagues across the aisle don't support
this as much as we claim and they claim. Otherwise, I would have
expected the amendment I had, which reflected exactly what we twice
agreed to, to be part of the underlying bill. It is not, and that is
unfortunate. But Mr. Stanton's work is valuable, and I support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H3228]]
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from Congressman
Walden.
I would say, in this particular case with this particular amendment,
this is not the government asking for information from entities that
don't want to provide it. Just the opposite, the Tribal communities in
my State and across the United States of America want to provide this
information and want this very detailed consultation with the FCC so
that we can provide better investments on Tribal lands.
This is a situation where government involvement is very much
welcomed by the entities that we are asking the FCC to better consult
with. This is welcome government intervention.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I would say to my good friend, Mr. Walden, and he is my good friend,
that if you think the President's plan to nationalize 5G is a bad
idea--and I kind of recall the gentleman saying that. As recently as
yesterday, the administration in its campaign is still talking about
nationalizing 5G. Perhaps it is time to get on the phone or to stand up
here on the House floor publicly and talk about some action that we can
take as a Congress to make sure that the White House doesn't
nationalize 5G.
With the amendment before us, bridging the digital divide is one of
the great challenges the FCC faces today. The Save the Internet Act is
going to give the FCC new tools to address that digital divide.
Although broadband technologies keep getting better, they are not
reaching everyone, especially those in remote areas, like Native
Americans living on Tribal lands. These populations face unique
challenges in getting high-speed internet access service. That is why
it is critical that the FCC focus on identifying and addressing
obstacles to getting high-speed internet onto reservations and Tribal
lands.
This amendment would instruct the FCC to work more closely with
Native Americans to help connect Tribal lands. This amendment is
particularly important because of the Trump FCC's illegal attempt to
reduce support for the Lifeline program to Tribal communities. This
decision was ultimately found to be illegal by the courts. However, it
is critical that the Commission talk and listen to the people who
understand the problems and represent the communities lacking
broadband.
Mr. Chairman, I support this commonsense amendment.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief here. The only effort to
nationalize 5G and to fully regulate 5G is contained in the Democrats'
bill. That is where it is happening.
We had an amendment in the Rules Committee to prevent that, and the
Democrats who control the Rules Committee by a 2-to-1 margin refused to
even allow us to debate that amendment here on the floor.
Finally, the President never said he was going to nationalize 5G.
Somebody leaked a memo out of the White House that said that is a good
idea. I oppose that. Right that same day, within hours, they had been
clear on that.
Let's be clear here. The facts of the matter are that this
legislation nationalizes and regulates 5G like it has never been done
before and threatens innovation and development of this exciting new
opportunity for American consumers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State
of California (Mr. McCarthy), who is the Republican leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask a simple yet important question, a
question more and more Americans are beginning to ask: What have the
Democrats done with their majority?
This Friday marks the 100th day of the new Democratic majority, 100
days of Democratic disappointment.
Today, we were supposed to debate the Democrats' shell budget, but
Speaker Pelosi pulled it. So here we are, debating another bill that is
dead on arrival in the Senate.
The numbers speak for themselves. At this point in the last Congress,
Republicans had passed 141 bills out of committee and 132 out of the
House.
We all believe in accountability, so what do the numbers say now? By
contrast, Democrats have passed 68 bills out of committee and 97 out of
the House, considerably fewer bills out of this House than before.
But think about this: Democrats have passed more bills out of the
House than they have out of the committee. So much for doing the job of
the people's House. No. It is whatever leadership decides.
Mr. Chairman, we have been lectured countless times by Speaker Pelosi
over the years, and you all know the comments: Show us your budget,
show us your values.
It hasn't been said once, it has been said hundreds of times: Show us
your budget, show us your values.
The Speaker and I have disagreements, but I agree that passing a
budget is the fundamental responsibility of the majority. That is not
what we are doing today. Unfortunately, it looks like we will never
know the true values of this majority because there is no budget.
Mr. Chairman, the problem goes beyond the Democrats' lack of results.
As a majority, the Democrats have focused on three principles above all
else: resolutions, radicalism, and resistance.
One in five votes in this House that has been taken since the end of
January were nonbinding messaging resolutions. Just last week, we
wasted time debating a symbolic resolution on healthcare. Imagine for a
moment if we had instead spent one-fifth of our time actually working
to lower premiums, expand choice, or improve quality. Imagine all that
we could have achieved.
Right now, we have a humanitarian crisis along our southern border.
What if we spent one-fifth of our time working to improve border
security and fix the loopholes in our immigration system?
No, Mr. Chairman. Democrats would rather consider another nonbinding
resolution.
I have never known anybody who has run for office who was asked to
make sure you go to Congress to waste time on votes that do not matter.
They send us here to deliver solutions, not resolutions.
Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better.
Perhaps the Democratic majority is so focused on resolutions because
they don't want the American people to understand the consequences of
their radical, extremist policies.
The Wall Street Journal wrote: ``Democrats are embracing policies
that include government control of ever-larger chunks of the private
American economy.''
Or, as I like to say, if you like the welfare state, you will love
the Democratic agenda.
Take the Green New Deal. Under the guise of fighting climate change,
it will lead to government control over nearly every element of our
lives. What it wouldn't do is make housing more available or even
energy more affordable for hardworking families.
How about Medicare for All? How do you like a one-size-fits-all
healthcare system where government bureaucrats, not consumers, decide
what benefits you are going to receive?
Mr. Chairman, do you know that more than 100 Democrats in the
majority have cosponsored this bill? So not only do they support it,
they crave it to come to the floor.
What would it do? It would end private insurance. That means 158
million Americans would lose their insurance. And everybody on Medicare
Advantage? Gone.
That is what they worked on these first 100 days.
Your doctor? Gone.
Your hospital? Gone.
Your healthcare plan? Gone.
On issue after issue, Democrats seem to have but one solution: more
spending, more bureaucracy, and more government control.
Mr. Chairman, the American public deserves better.
Finally, you can learn a lot about this majority by seeing the bills
they refused to consider these first 100 days.
After spending weeks unwilling to condemn anti-Semitic remarks, you
would think House Democrats would rush to schedule real legislation. We
have a bill sitting at the Speaker's desk right now that would take
concrete steps to counter the growing boycott, divestment, sanctions
movement
[[Page H3229]]
against our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel. You would think
that, Mr. Chairman, but that would be wrong.
You would think that after the Virginia Governor made comments that
seemed to support infanticide, House Democrats would rush to schedule
the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Remember, this bill
simply ensures that all babies, regardless of when they are born,
receive the medical care they deserve as human beings. Yet for the 31st
time--no exaggeration, 31 times we have asked on this floor for
unanimous consent to bring that bill up--Democrats have refused.
That is what they spent 100 days on. They refuse to defend newborns
from infanticide because they are beholden to the most extreme factions
of their own party.
Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better.
The only unifying theme of the Democrats' 100 days has been their
nonstop resistance to President Trump. For 2 years, Democrats insisted
that the President colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. Their
own chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
the one who is supposed to see and protect us, told the American public
in 2017 that there was more than circumstantial evidence to prove it.
Yet when the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion, Democrats
refused to accept the conclusion. They refused to do anything to Adam
Schiff who had lied to the American public for the last 2 years. They
didn't apologize for misleading the public either.
No, without missing a beat and aided by the liberal media, they
simply opened up new investigations. That is what they did for their
100 days.
Who pays for these endless investigations? You, the hardworking
taxpayer. The Democrats are happy to continue to run up the tab and
never bring a budget to the floor to show their values.
{time} 0945
Mr. Chair, the American public deserves better.
Today, the Democrats are leaving for their Member retreat and then a
2-week spring break. Let's hope they come back with more than a tan.
Let's hope they come back with a new game plan. Let's hope they come
back ready to work for the common good, not simply to appease their
extremist, radical base.
Now, we are ready and eager to work with Democrats. We are ready to
work with Democrats to secure our border. We are ready to work with
Democrats to upgrade our infrastructure. We are ready to work with
Democrats to lower the cost of prescription drugs and address the
opioid crisis.
We stand ready to work with anyone to solve the problems our country
faces, in the next 100 days and beyond. After 100 days, please, Mr.
Chair, let's get to work. The American people deserve nothing less.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Neguse). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Trone
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chairman, 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. ACCURACY OF DATA UNDERLYING BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
REPORTS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Commission has released reports on its inquiries
under section 706(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(47 U.S.C. 1302(b)) that detail the state of the deployment
of broadband service in the United States.
(2) Congress and the Commission have relied upon the
accuracy of such reports to develop broadband policy.
(3) The findings of such reports have been particularly
important to fostering rural broadband deployment and
broadband deployment to schools and classrooms.
(b) Requirements.--The Commission--
(1) may not release a report on an inquiry under section
706(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C.
1302(b)) based on broadband deployment data that the
Commission knows to be inaccurate; and
(2) shall use its best efforts to accurately detail
broadband deployment in the United States and correct
inaccuracies in statements made by the Commission prior to
the release of a report about the report.
(c) Commission Defined.--In this section, the term
``Commission'' means the Federal Communications Commission.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Trone) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In 21st century America, having reliable, high-speed internet
broadband isn't a luxury; it is a necessity. Just like running water or
electricity, it is part of our essential infrastructure, yet millions
of Americans in rural communities, including some in my district in
western Maryland, remain disconnected from the internet.
That lack of connectivity leads to homework gaps, healthcare gaps,
and economic development gaps. It is our job in Congress to eliminate
those gaps.
The Federal Communications Commission is required to report accurate
data to the public so that we can make effective decisions about rural
broadband infrastructure policy and investment.
But there is strong evidence that the percentage of Americans without
broadband access is much higher than the FCC's numbers indicate.
In order to justify Chairman Pai's deregulation agenda, the FCC
released highly flawed and misleading data that paints a false picture
of broadband deployment in rural America.
We now know the FCC's data was based on a massive error that was
brought to his attention before the FCC disseminated the press release
touting their success. That kind of deception could lead to millions of
our neighbors in rural America being locked out of this critical good.
This amendment seeks to address this issue by, one, prohibiting the
FCC from releasing a report based on information it knows to be
inaccurate; and, two, specifying the Commission must use its best
efforts to ensure all future reports are accurate, and they must
correct past inaccuracies prior to the release of new data on broadband
deployment.
It is pretty simple. We need accurate information to make the best
decisions regarding broadband deployment. Let's ensure we get that from
the FCC moving forward, and then let's ensure every American has access
to reliable high-speed broadband.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, but I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's concern about the accuracy of
the FCC's reports on deployment. I share those. And with his broader
concern about broadband generally, I agree with that.
In fact, many Members on both sides of the aisle share these
concerns, especially when it comes to the unserved Americans in our
most rural areas, like my district that would stretch from the Atlantic
to Ohio. It is a big district.
So, I will support this amendment. However, I would ask my colleagues
to seriously consider, Mr. Chairman, the negative impacts of giving the
FCC power to regulate rates on rural broadband deployment.
Mr. Kinzinger's amendment to block any sort of rate regulation was
actually blocked by the majority from being considered today, and that
is unfortunate.
At the full committee markup, Mr. Kinzinger highlighted a memo from
the Congressional Research Service that noted there is nothing
permanent to the forbearance that the majority claims to be doing when
it comes to controlling the prices providers charge consumers.
[[Page H3230]]
So, we could get into rate regulation through the FCC, and every ISP
would have to come back here and beg and explain their rate structure
and everything else. And we have got thousands of them.
The majority attempted to remedy this flaw with some additional
language purporting to lock in the FCC's forbearance on this matter,
but the actual effect of that language is still unclear.
Most importantly, they left open the broad authority of sections 201
and 202 of the Communications Act and other authority that gives the
Federal Communications Commission, all five unelected officials, plenty
of leeway to regulate rates under title II.
The legislation we have before us clearly leaves the door open to
rate regulation. If this were not the case, then the Kinzinger
amendment, I would think, would be before the House today or would have
been approved in committee when we had a chance to do that.
This is no way to conduct business in the internet age. These title
II regulations were originally implemented for railroad monopolies in
the 19th century. So, if you really believe in a competitive, open
marketplace and a competitive, open internet, you don't turn it over to
unelected bureaucrats in Washington to micromanage.
As they were applied in their original incarnation, the requirements
of just and reasonable practices under section 201(b) and no
unreasonable discrimination under 202(a)--which, by the way, sound
perfect--provided sufficient authority to impose price controls on
railroads.
So, by opening the door with title II and these other sections of
law, you are now giving this vast power to basically three unelected
officials at the FCC. You just need a majority to decide how the whole
internet runs. I think that is a problem.
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, good policy simply needs good data. We need accurate,
reliable information to target our policies and resources as
effectively as possible.
This amendment simply ensures reports issued by the FCC are accurate,
and we should all be able to agree on that. And I thank the gentleman
for that.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, the Save the
Internet Act will ensure net neutrality and help bring the internet to
parts of the country that don't yet have it.
I would say to my friend from Oregon, the bill is crystal clear on
rate regulation. The language clearly prohibits any rate regulation, so
rural folks need not worry about that.
Through the act, the FCC will have the authority to accelerate
deployment of broadband by removing barriers to infrastructure
investment and by promoting competition. And, furthering that goal,
Congress requires that the FCC report on the state of broadband
deployment nationwide.
The results, every year, are particularly important because they are
used to figure out where to best direct funds for rural broadband
deployment. And to name a few, that is important for consumers,
schools, libraries, and hospitals that they get the connections they
need.
And we need to know that the FCC's data is accurate. We expect the
FCC to use its best efforts to ensure that the data is up to date and
error free before releasing their reports.
Recently, the traditional diligence of the FCC has been called into
question. According to news reports, the FCC is preparing a report that
contains data that an internet service provider has told the FCC is
wrong. The carrier reported that it provided high-speed broadband to
everyone in 10 states when its actual service area was a fraction of
that.
This serious oversight seriously alters the state of broadband
deployment in this country and calls into question data used by this
administration to justify other policies.
Despite that internet service provider coming forward, the FCC has
not even corrected a press statement that was, in part, based on that
erroneous data entitled ``America's Digital Divide Narrows
Substantially.''
As the expert agency regulating broadband, it cannot knowingly put
out false information that misleads the public. This amendment will
help remedy that. That is why I support it, and that is why I think we
should all vote for it.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. As I said, I intend to
support it. We need the facts here, and I support getting the facts.
We know the reporting data we often get is not accurate. And, if
people are lying about their data, then we should hold them
accountable, and I'll join you in that effort. That is not acceptable.
On the issue of rate regulation, that is what title II is all about.
That is what this bill gives the FCC the authority to do.
While you can argue that adopting the forbearances that the FCC did
under title II when they had that authority may preclude rate
regulation there, by giving them this enormous authority, your own
counsel testified in answer to our question, that they could go through
a standard rulemaking process and use sections 201 and 202 to do their
own rate regulation.
You see, you may close the front door, but you left the back door
open. Actually, you created a back door.
That is where I am concerned, and my side is concerned that you are
empowering the FCC with these incredible authorities designed for
monopoly railroads and designed for monopoly communications systems
that could really hamper future investment in things like 5G and
provide all this micromanagement of the internet and harm consumers.
That is why so many of us oppose this particular provision.
I keep seeing Republicans on this floor, Mr. Chairman, accept the
Democrats' amendments in almost every case. They blocked some of ours
from being able to be considered.
But, when it comes to this fundamental issue of turning the internet
over to the Federal Government and three unelected people to do
incredible things that aren't good for the long-term benefit of
consumers and new technologies, we have to remain opposed.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Brindisi
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. 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 HIGH-SPEED INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Report.--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 and the Federal
Communications Commission a report that contains--
(1) a list of ways the Federal Government can promote the
deployment of broadband Internet access service, especially
the buildout of such service to rural areas and areas without
access to such service at high speeds; and
(2) recommendations with respect to policies and
regulations to ensure rural areas are provided affordable
access to broadband Internet access service.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Broadband internet access service.-- The term
``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given
such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(2) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means any area
other than--
[[Page H3231]]
(A) a city, town, or incorporated area that has a
population of more than 20,000 inhabitants; or
(B) an urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or
town that has a population of more than 50,000 inhabitants.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Brindisi) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
his leadership on this important topic.
The free market is the cornerstone of America's economy, and this
bill would ensure that free-market competition is protected on the
internet.
However, for many Americans living in small towns, basic internet
access remains out of reach. Too many homes in rural areas are not
connected at all to high-speed broadband, and those that are online
suffer from slow speeds and constant interruptions in service.
Customers see their bills go up month after month, and service just
gets worse and worse.
Internet access is essential in today's economy, and we need to do
more to connect rural areas to high-speed broadband.
My amendment would direct the Government Accountability Office to
issue recommendations on how to expand broadband internet service in
rural and other underserved areas. This information will help guide our
work on how to best expand broadband access in rural communities.
I urge adoption of my amendment, and I, again, thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this bill and urge our
colleagues to pass the underlying legislation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
{time} 1000
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I support this amendment to require
the GAO to look into ways to promote deployment of broadband to our
most rural and underserved areas. It is a very worthy subject and one
on which I think we can find some really broad bipartisan agreement. It
is a top priority of mine and has been, so I won't oppose the
amendment.
We are obviously delegating a lot of authority to the GAO, which is a
wonderful organization, but we all have had hearings and know what
really needs to happen, I think, going forward to get broadband built
out. However, if you are really concerned about deployment to rural and
underserved areas, you should be extremely concerned about the impact
the underlying bill is going to have on our ability to get broadband
out to these areas and close the digital divide.
Title II is a proven investment killer, period, hard stop. This is
shown not only in the overall nationwide investment numbers going down
during the only 2-year blip these rules were in effect. Remember, my
colleague from New York, these internet rules you are about only
existed for less than about 2 years. That is it.
The whole growth, the expansion of the internet and broadband
occurred during the period of the 1990s to 2015. Then the internet
order was put in and investment went down, and then the internet order
was repealed and investment is going up.
The head of the Eastern Oregon Telecom Company, Joe Franell, came
back to Washington and testified before our subcommittee and said,
under title II, his investors lost interest; deals dried up; the bank
wouldn't even give him a loan. It was an extremely compelling story
from somebody who is on the front lines of getting broadband built out
to the very areas you and I would agree need service.
And we heard from many other small rural ISPs as well with the same
stories. They are the ones that take the worst hit under title II that
is in this bill you support.
Now, I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee to do something
real to address the worst uncertainties that these small carriers have
to deal with under title II.
Title II opens the door to government control of private networks. It
opens the door to government taxation of the internet. It opens the
door to government regulation of speech online.
My amendment would have closed all of those doors. Unfortunately, the
Democrats, again, who control the Rules Committee, Mr. Chairman, 2 to
1, would not find a way to even allow us to bring that amendment here
for a vote or debate.
I have to say, under title II, our smallest rural ISPs would have a
really tough time, and we have seen a lot of evidence of this in the
past. So I hope my friends will consider that, when we are voting on
this underlying bill, we are actually going to cause those small ISPs
more harm than good, and that will delay deployment into unserved and
underserved communities.
A GAO study on deployment will have no impact whatsoever on
deployment-killing excesses of title II, but it will give us some ideas
about how to build out broadband, so I won't oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
We keep hearing this talk about how investment plummeted after the
2015 order. Well, we all know that is not true, and the proof is in the
pudding.
Investment data shows an aggregate increase in investment following
the FCC's February 2015 vote to adopt the open internet rules compared
to the 2 years following the repeal of the 2015 order, when investment
actually decreased.
The same is true of most ISPs' individual investments. The majority
of publicly traded broadband providers reported investment increases
after the 2015 order was adopted. In the first year following adoption
of the 2015 rules, census data showed a $3.5 billion jump in capital
spending in data processing, hosting, and related services.
Moreover, the repeal of the 2015 order did not result in a use boost
to infrastructure spending, as the Trump FCC asserted would happen.
Instead, investment actually decreased.
This amendment before us is important. Though many of our
constituents enjoy easy access to high-speed broadband, there are still
many pockets of this country that aren't served by high-speed
broadband. Or, as my good friend Peter Welch from the great State of
Vermont says about the promises of 5G: ``Some of us have no Gs.''
The Save the Internet Act is going to restore net neutrality
throughout the country, and it is going to give the FCC key authorities
that buttress critical programs, such as the Connect America Fund that
provides money to build high-speed broadband out to areas where it
would not be economic to do so without the funding.
The Save the Internet Act also gives internet service providers
nondiscriminatory access to rights of way and poles, which will
facilitate build-out in rural areas.
Unless we connect our rural communities, the people in them cannot
fully be active participants in the 21st century economy. They are
missing out on education and workforce opportunities that are so often
now delivered online. That is why much of the rural broadband
deployment in this country is funded by the Connect America Fund.
This amendment would require GAO to examine these issues and to
provide a report with recommendations about how the government can
promote build-out to hard-to-reach or otherwise overlooked communities.
This is such an important policy issue and such an important part of
saving the internet.
I look forward to joining my colleagues in supporting this amendment.
Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I again urge adoption of the amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I appreciate both my colleagues' comments, but
the nationwide numbers of investment obscure what happens in our
smallest investors, among those that are out
[[Page H3232]]
there, like Joe Franell in Eastern Oregon trying to build out.
What we do know is he came back and testified to the problem he
encountered individually as one who is very progressive and active,
trying to connect really difficult places to get to with the highest
speed broadband possible.
I have met with him before; I have met with him during; I have met
with him afterwards. He came back on his own dime to make the case
that, when these rules were in effect, he had difficulty getting loans;
he had difficulty building out; he was burdened more than he had ever
been before, and that diminished his ability to build out.
His numbers probably are dust in terms of investment that the big
companies have, but that is who I care about are the little operators
that are so pushed down by this heavy hand of government
overregulation. So that is, I think, what we have to maintain our focus
on.
Again, title II gives these vast unprecedented powers to the FCC to
regulate the internet like it has never been regulated before. People
who have no Gs need our help, but people waiting for 5G don't need us
to pass legislation that will screw it up and diminish innovation, and
that is one of the reasons I am opposing this version of net
neutrality.
We could agree on no throttling and no blocking and the paid
prioritization issue as well.
The other thing I found interesting, Mr. Chairman, is, throughout the
course of all of our hearings, there wasn't a witness panel of people
who had faced all of these parade of horribles we have heard about from
ISPs.
There weren't any witnesses. They didn't bring anybody. I don't know
if they are out there or not. They didn't bring anybody who has been
affected by the edge providers, however, and that is another subject
for our conversation going forward.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and 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. Brindisi).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Spanberger
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHALLENGES TO ACCURATE MAPPING.
(a) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall--
(1) determine the accuracy and granularity of the maps
produced by the Federal Communications Commission that depict
wireline and wireless broadband Internet access service
deployment in the United States; and
(2) submit to Congress a report that--
(A) identifies--
(i) any program of the Federal Communications Commission
under a rule restored under section 2(b) that relies on such
maps, including any funding program; and
(ii) any action of the Federal Communications Commission
taken under a rule restored under section 2(b) that relies on
such maps, including any assessment of competition in an
industry; and
(B) provides recommendations for how the Federal
Communications Commission can produce more accurate,
reliable, and granular maps that depict wireline and wireless
broadband Internet access service deployment in the United
States.
(b) Broadband Internet Access Service Defined.--In this
section, the term ``broadband Internet access service'' has
the meaning given such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code
of Federal Regulations.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentlewoman
from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my commonsense
broadband mapping amendment to H.R. 1644, the Save the Internet Act of
2019.
The digital gap between our rural and urban communities is real, and
I hear about it from the people I serve every day.
According to the FCC's 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, more than 30
percent of rural Americans lack access to high-speed fixed broadband,
compared to only 2 percent of urban Americans. This disparity has long-
term implications for the economic strength and security of our
country.
In rural America, a lack of reliable broadband internet makes it
harder for businesses to find customers and attract new employees.
Without reliable broadband internet, communities across this country
face challenges attracting new businesses and investment.
In rural America, farmers have a tougher time using the latest
precision agriculture technology, and in places without reliable
broadband internet, kids find it difficult to complete their homework
assignments.
In our district in central Virginia, farmers and producers are
disadvantaged because the lack of broadband makes doing business
harder. In our district, constituents drive their kids to McDonald's or
to neighboring counties so that they can complete their research
projects for school. And what is happening in our district is happening
nationwide.
Today, we are considering a critical piece of legislation to champion
the idea of a free and open internet.
There is no question that rural broadband internet access should be a
part of this conversation, as this bill would also include a provision
to restore the FCC's authority to fund the expansion of broadband
access across our rural communities. But right now, there are many
questions surrounding the accuracy of the FCC's broadband internet
maps, which detail which areas in the United States have high-speed
internet coverage and which do not.
These maps have important implications for our rural communities,
schools, and businesses. These maps are used to award funding and
subsidies to expand broadband coverage to areas that don't have it,
and, in many cases, these efforts have led to great success.
However, these maps have been found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or
unreliable. Often a map will claim an entire area is covered by high-
speed broadband when, in reality, only a small portion of that area has
reliable coverage.
This trend should not be the status quo in our digital age because it
leaves so many rural families underserved. Areas where the FCC's maps
incorrectly say there is high-speed rural broadband connectivity are
often ineligible for funding to expand broadband, and these
inaccuracies greatly disadvantage our rural communities.
Erroneous information in these maps could be the difference between a
senior citizen being able to access lifesaving telemedicine services or
not; it could be the difference between a farmer who can keep up with
market fluctuations halfway across the world or not; and it could
control the ability of a young, aspiring student to access online
information, college applications, and research materials.
My amendment to the Save the Internet Act would address a lack of
reliable broadband internet connectivity in our rural communities, and
it would begin to fix the errors in our current broadband maps.
My amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to
produce a full report that examines the accuracy and quality of the
FCC's broadband mapping. This report would also identify what the FCC
should do to produce more accurate, reliable, and high-quality maps.
Additionally, the GAO report required by my amendment would help
identify the scope of the broadband mapping problem and actually
suggest solutions. With this new information, the FCC would be better
able to update its maps so that we can properly target our broadband
expansion efforts to the rural towns, townships, and communities across
our district.
Better maps of broadband coverage are a critical first step toward
getting high-speed internet to every household, something we should aim
to do in our globalized, digitally-focused economy. As we are having
important discussions about protecting and expanding reliable access to
the internet, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to H.R.
1644.
[[Page H3233]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I don't think I am opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with my colleague from
Virginia that the maps showing broadband deployment in the United
States can and must be improved. That is why, when Republicans held the
majority for the Energy and Commerce Committee, we held numerous
hearings on how to do that, how to improve broadband mapping at the
FCC.
We also shared legislation with our Democratic--then minority--
colleagues to bring in the expertise of the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration to aggregate granular data beyond the
carrier data that the FCC uses for its maps.
Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn't
want to work with us to improve mapping last Congress. I am more
hopeful this time that we can engage--we are ready, willing, and able
to do so--and that we can address this matter.
Mapping is clearly important--I think we all agree on that--and it is
where we should focus our limited Federal money on broadband support.
But rather than help spur broadband deployment and provide more
granular data, the underlying legislation would make it more difficult
on broadband providers to deploy broadband.
We just discussed how investment in broadband, especially for our
small providers, suffered under title II. They came and testified to
that.
But my reservation on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, has to do with
the conflict that I see between the Wexton amendment, No. 5, and the
Spanberger amendment, No. 11. I wonder if the gentlewoman from Virginia
would care to comment about that, and I would be happy to yield. I
didn't have a chance to talk with her. It may not be fair.
The issue here is the Wexton amendment, which we did not oppose,
requires the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress,
within 30 days, a plan for how the Commission will evaluate and address
problems with the collection of form 477 data.
{time} 1015
I believe those are the same data we are talking about with your
amendment to have the GAO do this investigation and report to Congress
as well.
The conflict I see is, on the one hand, we are telling the FCC to go
do its work and report back in 30 days, but in your amendment, we are
telling the GAO to go do its work and tell us eventually where the
problems are. They can do that, but we have already told the FCC to
report back its answers.
I am not going to oppose the amendment, but it seems like there is
kind of a conflict here, potentially. Because we want to get it right,
it seems like we would wait to have the FCC report back until the GAO
had completed its work. Then we could work with the FCC to say, okay,
now that we know what the GAO has found and informed us on, then, FCC,
go and report back.
I might have structured this a little differently had we had time to
work out some of that.
I am not going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. We have to get
the data right. We have to get the mapping right.
When the stimulus came out in the Obama administration, I argued this
very point in the committee. We were in the minority then, so of
course, I lost. But they were spending money that was being set aside
in the stimulus to build out broadband in America before they had the
maps to figure out where people were underserved and unserved.
It seemed kind of backward then, and I think it was. We didn't get
the maps until after the money was allocated. The time to do the audits
and evaluations of how that money was spent, the money for that ran out
before the build-out was finished, so we had to come back to look at
that. Then we did find limited cases of fraud and abuse, not much,
frankly, but enough. It is taxpayer dollars.
I won't oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I think we can work out
these things if this bill were to move forward, but the timing is the
issue that I have some reservations on.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Virginia has 1 minute
remaining.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I would say to my friend, I think what we are trying to do
in these two amendments is, we need the FCC to get on this as soon as
possible, but we need the GAO to continue to look at this. But I
understand what the gentleman is saying.
Look, we know these maps are wrong. I mean, nobody is arguing about
that, and it is unacceptable. What the gentlewoman's amendment would do
is ask the GAO to do a report to examine the current mapping processes
for both wireless and wired line services.
They would also be asked to identify what FCC programs and actions
rely on maps and to make recommendations on how the FCC could produce
more reliable maps.
I think this is an important amendment. I support it, and I urge all
my colleagues to support it also.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and the
gentleman's comments. We can figure out how to work this out, I think.
But clearly, we have to fix the maps.
Even the industry has told me, at least--they admit the data, the way
it is collected and everything else, is not an accurate representation.
They would like our help in this as well.
Hopefully, we can move forward on an NTIA reauthorization as well. We
marched through a number of agency reauthorizations and programmatic
reauthorizations that hadn't been done in decades in the last 2 years.
We should continue that important work as well. We stand ready as
Republicans to join our colleagues to get that done.
Mr. 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. Spanberger).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. McAdams
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
Mr. McADAMS. Mr. 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. LAWFUL CONTENT.
(a) In General.--As described in the Report and Order on
Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the matter of
protecting and promoting the open internet that was adopted
by the Federal Communications Commission on February 26, 2015
(FCC 15-24)--
(1) nothing in this Act prohibits providers of broadband
Internet access service from blocking content that is not
lawful, such as child pornography or copyright-infringing
materials; and
(2) nothing in this Act imposes any independent legal
obligation on providers of broadband Internet access service
to be the arbiter of what is lawful content.
(b) Broadband Internet Access Service Defined.--In this
section, the term ``broadband Internet access service'' has
the meaning given such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code
of Federal Regulations.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. McAdams) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R.
1644, the Save the Internet Act.
As the father of four children, I worry about what my kids see on
social media and online, and I know firsthand how important it is that
illegal content doesn't pollute the internet.
My amendment would affirm that this bill preserves broadband internet
[[Page H3234]]
service providers' ability to block unlawful content, including
disturbing and harmful materials like child pornography.
We are here today to vote on legislation to protect the internet as
an engine of innovation and open communication free from undue
restrictions, such as blocking legal content and services, throttling
service, and paid prioritization of content. While the bill does not,
as currently written, revoke service providers' ability to block
illegal content, I believe the House can agree that we should
nonetheless affirm our commitment to stopping unlawful behaviors, such
as viewing child pornography and copyright infringement.
My amendment does not impose additional or onerous legal requirements
on service providers to act as an arbiter of lawfulness but, rather,
ensures providers can continue working with consumer watchdogs and law
enforcement to keep our internet free from illegal content and to make
it safe for our families.
Let me reiterate this amendment also does not grant ISPs any new
rights to block content that is lawful or decide what is lawful on the
internet. My amendment simply stands for the proposition that unlawful
content is not protected by net neutrality rules.
It is one thing to say ISPs can block content subject to a valid
court order and quite another to let ISPs make decisions about the
lawfulness of content for themselves. This amendment strikes that
balance.
We have bipartisan consensus on the tremendous value of the
internet's contribution to our society's innovation and communication,
and I also know that there is bipartisan concern about severe illegal
misuses of the internet's power. I believe my amendment offers us an
opportunity to confirm our support once again for a free internet with
unfettered access to legal content and to our vehement opposition to
child pornography.
Mr. Chair, I thank the members of the committee for their work on
this legislation, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague across the aisle,
Mr. McAdams, that ISPs should be able to block unlawful content, and I
support his amendment.
In fact, even when the FCC imposed the heavy-handed title II
regulations, it recognized in paragraph 113 of its order that the ban
on blocking did not ``prevent or restrict a broadband provider from
refusing to transmit unlawful material, such as child pornography or
copyright-infringing materials.''
This was similar to the FCC's earlier nonblocking rule, which was
also affirmed, that ISPs could block material that was unlawful.
It strikes me as interesting that you have to have this amendment to
apparently clarify an ambiguity some must feel exists in the underlying
bill, but we will support it if it is necessary to do that.
I firmly support net neutrality that allows Americans to enjoy the
lawful content on the internet and applications of their choosing.
I would point out to my friend from Utah that the concerns about
social media, and I share them, are not covered by this legislation.
Those big platforms are completely exempt, as near as we can tell, so
that is another area where I think we all share a common bond, that
there is concern about what goes on in social media, things that aren't
legal, things that are fake. I mean, you name it.
Under title II, the FCC could police internet content, as it
currently does with content broadcasts over television or radio. I was
a radio broadcaster for 21 years, owned and operated stations, and that
concerns me a bit if we are going to get the FCC being the Nation's
speech police. By making further rules on the ISPs, you might be able
to end up there. That is a concern.
This is a really broad, open-ended authority that you all are giving
to the Federal Communications Commission. That is because the FCC did
not forebear from some content-specific provisions of title II, such as
section 223. That would give the FCC authority to impose content-based
restrictions if it found it to be ``just and reasonable.'' That goes
well beyond just the legal content, I think.
I am not burdened with a law degree, but I have some really good
lawyers that counsel me on these matters.
This is why we offered an amendment that would have put certain
protections in place for consumers' freedom of speech online because
that is also something we all swear to uphold, our First Amendment
rights of religion and speech.
Rather than talk about how we can prevent the FCC from someday
abusing the expansive authority that the majority is about to give it,
we are here discussing something that has been universally agreed upon
by all parties to this debate.
Mr. Chair, we appreciate the gentleman's perfecting amendment to this
legislation. I intend to support it.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Michael F. Doyle) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I would ask the
Congressman, my understanding of his amendment is that it simply
restates what is already in the 2015 Open Internet Order, namely, that
nothing in this bill would prohibit ISPs from blocking unlawful content
and that nothing in this act adds any additional requirement or right
for an ISP to decide what is lawful content?
Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, yes, that is correct. Nothing in this
amendment grants any sort of new rights to an ISP. Rather, this
amendment simply stands for the proposition that unlawful content is
not protected by net neutrality rules. In other words, blocking
unlawful content does not violate net neutrality.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the
gentleman for clarifying that. I support the gentleman's amendment.
Since this is the last of the amendments to be offered, I wanted to
take this time to thank my friend and the Republican side for a
vigorous debate not only in our committee but here on the floor.
Mr. Chair, I would be remiss if I didn't thank our staffs, namely
Alex Hoehn-Saric, Jerry Leverich, Jennifer Epperson, AJ Brown, Dan
Miller, Kenneth Degraff, and my telecom staff, Philip Murphy. Without
him, I wouldn't sound as intelligent as I do on these matters. I thank
all of the Democratic staff. They worked very hard, and they deserve
our thanks.
Mr. Chair, this has been a vigorous debate, as it should be, but we
are coming to a close now, and I thank my friend for his participation.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
I again thank the gentleman from Utah for bringing this amendment. I
guess my suspicions were right: It is merely restating what is already
in the 2015 order, which is what this bill basically reinstates into
law.
Mr. Chair, I thank my staff as well for the great job they have done.
I appreciate both sides as we work together on these complicated and
sometimes controversial issues.
I would point out that, under sections 223 and 201, you are again
opening the door to vast new regulation of speech and content, I
believe and our attorneys believe, by giving the FCC this authority.
I am a First Amendment guy. I have a degree in journalism. I believe
in free speech. Sometimes, I don't like that speech. Sometimes, I find
it offensive. The stuff that is illegal, you bet, we are all together
on. But there are some interesting stories coming out around Europe and
elsewhere where countries now, especially some of those in the more
authoritarian parts of the world, are using this argument to crack down
on political speech they find offensive.
I think we have to be very careful as Republicans, as Democrats, as
all
[[Page H3235]]
Americans to try to find that balance between the obvious and the
speech that really is about protecting the powerful. I think we can
find common ground on that, but I do wince a bit that we are opening
the door, or you all are with your bill, to giving the FCC the power to
tax the internet, the power to regulate speech on the internet by going
through a rulemaking.
I think that heads us in a little more dangerous direction and,
meanwhile, does not address some of the issues I hear in townhalls. I
have done 20 of them in every county in my district this year. When
people begin to step up and have issues, it is not the ISPs they are
complaining about, other than speeds and connectivity, that sort of
thing. It is what is happening on some of the social media platforms,
which are not addressed by this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. McAdams).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. 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 Utah will be
postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report
116-37 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Delgado of New York.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Wexton of Virginia.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. McAdams of Utah.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
{time} 1030
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Delgado
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Delgado) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 363,
noes 60, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 163]
AYES--363
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allred
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cloud
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Connolly
Cook
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crawford
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Dunn
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guthrie
Haaland
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Hartzler
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norton
Nunes
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Palazzo
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reschenthaler
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouda
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yarmuth
Young
NOES--60
Allen
Amash
Banks
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (UT)
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Budd
Burchett
Carter (GA)
Cline
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Duncan
Emmer
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gohmert
Gooden
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Guest
Harris
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Hunter
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lesko
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Meuser
Mooney (WV)
Norman
Palmer
Posey
Ratcliffe
Rice (SC)
Roy
Rutherford
Schweikert
Steube
Walker
Webster (FL)
Williams
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--14
Abraham
Amodei
Babin
Cicilline
Cooper
McEachin
Olson
Radewagen
Rice (NY)
Rooney (FL)
Ryan
Sanchez
Weber (TX)
Welch
{time} 1055
Messrs. BROOKS of Alabama, FERGUSON, and RICE of South Carolina
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. WENSTRUP, WESTERMAN, SCALISE, WATKINS, Mrs. RODGERS of
Washington, Messrs. KELLY of Pennsylvania, and BARR changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Wexton
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia
(Ms. Wexton) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 376,
noes 46, not voting 15, as follows:
[[Page H3236]]
[Roll No. 164]
AYES--376
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Allred
Amash
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cloud
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Connolly
Cook
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Ferguson
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fudge
Fulcher
Gabbard
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Guest
Guthrie
Haaland
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Hartzler
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marshall
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norton
Nunes
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouda
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Wenstrup
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Young
Zeldin
NOES--46
Banks
Barr
Biggs
Bishop (UT)
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Budd
Burchett
Chabot
Cline
Conaway
DesJarlais
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Gaetz
Gohmert
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Grothman
Harris
Hern, Kevin
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Lamborn
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Massie
Mast
McHenry
Mooney (WV)
Norman
Posey
Rice (SC)
Roy
Rutherford
Schweikert
Steube
Walker
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Williams
Wright
Yoho
NOT VOTING--15
Abraham
Amodei
Babin
Cooper
Langevin
McEachin
Olson
Radewagen
Rice (NY)
Rooney (FL)
Ryan
Sanchez
Weber (TX)
Welch
Yarmuth
{time} 1102
Mr. FERGUSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 164.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. McAdams
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
McAdams) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 423,
noes 0, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 165]
AYES--423
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Allred
Amash
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cline
Cloud
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Ferguson
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fudge
Fulcher
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Haaland
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hunter
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norman
Norton
Nunes
[[Page H3237]]
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouda
Rouzer
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--14
Abraham
Amodei
Babin
Bishop (UT)
Hurd (TX)
McEachin
Olson
Radewagen
Rice (NY)
Rooney (FL)
Sanchez
Stanton
Weber (TX)
Welch
{time} 1110
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Escobar). The question is on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Neguse) having assumed the chair, Ms. Escobar, 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 294, she reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit and it is at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. WALDEN. Oh, my gosh, Mr. Speaker, in its current form, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Walden moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1644 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING INTERNET TAX FREEDOM
ACT.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, impair,
supersede, or authorize the modification, impairment, or
supersession of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151
note).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for
5 minutes.
{time} 1115
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is actually pretty simple,
and Members have a clear choice today on the floor: Are you for taxing
the internet or not? That is the question.
As we have discussed at the Energy and Commerce Committee and again
on the House floor today, Mr. Speaker, no one fully understands the
implications of the underlying legislation. In fact, we have adopted
amendments that the sponsor indicates aren't really necessary but do
reinforce what is already in the bill. The scope of what it entails is
still unclear, however, and the impact it could have on consumers is
still uncertain.
Now, Democrats claim their bill permanently forbears from many of the
heavy-handed regulations that the Federal Communications Commission
could impose through this government takeover of the internet. It is
important to note that nothing in the underlying bill would prevent the
Federal Communications Commission from imposing similar regulations in
the future or through other provisions in statute.
Now, my colleagues never could produce the list of 700 forbearances
they claim the FCC engaged in that they are going to lock in statute
today. That is what you are voting on, among other things. We never
could get that list of 700 forbearances.
We have offered amendments in the committee and in the Rules
Committee to ensure that consumers are protected and to ensure that the
Democrats' rhetoric about their bill actually matches the substance.
These amendments were all rejected on party-line votes in committee.
What is clear is that the Democrats want a government takeover of the
internet. They want to open up the floodgates to a Federal, State, and
local cash grab through taxation and fees that could be put on by local
governments, State governments, and even the Federal Government.
Now, they will argue: Oh, no, there is nothing in the underlying
bill, no, no, no. It does not touch the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
That might be true. It doesn't have to because the underlying bill
opens the floodgates to section 201 and section 202 and other
provisions that would allow local, State, and Federal governments to
tax the internet. They can't do that today.
So, again, your vote is pretty simple: tax the internet or don't tax
the internet.
Once you classify internet services under the utility-style services,
tax administrators are going to do what they do best, and that is find
a way to charge fees and taxes on this category since they understand
how to get milk from every cow that walks by. Guess who is getting
milked. It is the consumers.
So if you have any doubt, Mr. Speaker, just check your monthly phone
bill. Your internet subscription is the new target. We are seeing all
kinds of things in this bill. They are doubling, potentially, use of
fees for the use of some facilities and poles, even altruistic-sounding
ones on telecommunications relay services and 911.
But guess what. Just ask New York residents how much of their monthly
911 charges are being diverted from their 911 call centers. According
to the Federal Communications Commission's 10th annual report to
Congress on how States collect and use 911 fees, a staggering 90.35
percent of the money New Yorkers pay for 911 services gets diverted.
For my friends in New Jersey, 77.26 percent gets diverted.
So these tax collectors know how to tax; they just haven't had the
opportunity to tax the internet, but they may well get it under this
bill if it were to become law.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is pretty simple. Republicans want to close the
door on taxation of the internet. Will Democrats join us or not?
If you vote for the motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, you vote to
close the tax and freedom door. A ``no'' vote leaves that door wide
open for taxation of the internet.
Do you want your consumers to pay higher bills every month for their
internet service or not?
Say ``no'' to higher taxes and fees and ``yes'' to this amendment to
protect those who actually pay the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H3238]]
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, pay
close attention this. This proposal is completely unnecessary. Let me
tell you why.
The bill simply restores the 2015 Open Internet Order that the FCC
adopted and was upheld by the courts. Nothing in that order could or
did give the FCC the authority to modify, impair, or supersede Federal
law. To the contrary, the order said specifically that it did not
impose new taxes or impact the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
The Internet Tax Freedom Act is Federal law. Nothing in this order
allows the FCC to modify, impair, or supersede Federal law.
This is a complete nonissue, nothing you need to be worried about;
and, frankly, it is just a last-ditch effort to delay and confuse
people on net neutrality.
Now, let's get down to what this bill really does. What this bill
does, basically, is three things:
First, the three we all agree on: no blocking, no throttling, and no
paid prioritization. Republicans and Democrats say we all agree with
that.
But, colleagues, that is not the end of the ball game, because we
have already seen discriminatory practices by ISPs that aren't covered
by blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
What my friends over here are saying is, sure, the three things we
caught them red-handed on that they have already pled guilty to, we are
not going to allow that anymore, but any new discriminatory behavior,
any new unjust or unreasonable behavior, we don't want a cop on the
beat to police that. We don't want to be able to give consumers the
right to go to the FCC and get relief from that. It is like locking the
front door and leaving the backdoor wide open.
Now, let's talk about another thing, too.
Two years ago, the Trump FCC repealed the Open Internet Order. What
did it replace it with? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Crickets. They did nothing.
It is the Wild, Wild West. Let the ISPs do anything they want and
consumers be damned. That is what they did.
For 2 years, they could have brought their so-called version of
light-touch net neutrality to the body. They controlled the House. They
controlled the Senate. They got a Republican President. They did
nothing because they don't believe in net neutrality, and they don't
believe in protecting consumers.
Well, I have got news for my friends on this side of the aisle: You
are not in charge here anymore. This is a new day. We didn't come to
Washington, D.C., to represent companies. We came here to represent the
American people.
May I tell my colleagues, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or
Independents, 86 percent of the American people say they want these
rules restored.
Colleagues, this is your first and only chance to tell the American
people where you stand on net neutrality and whether you believe that
the FCC should protect consumers. This is your chance to be on the
right side of history, on the side of the angels, and on the side of
the American people.
Let's defeat this motion to recommit and pass this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204,
noes 216, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 166]
AYES--204
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cunningham
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
Delgado
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spanberger
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOES--216
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Abraham
Amodei
Babin
Huffman
McEachin
Olson
Rice (NY)
Rooney (FL)
Sanchez
Weber (TX)
Welch
[[Page H3239]]
{time} 1130
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 190, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 167]
YEAS--232
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--190
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Armstrong
Arrington
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--10
Abraham
Amodei
Babin
McEachin
Olson
Rice (NY)
Rooney (FL)
Sanchez
Weber (TX)
Welch
{time} 1144
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed the
following vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 167.
personal explanation
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to
vote on Roll Call 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, and
167. I would include in the Record how I would have voted on each had I
been present.
rollcall 157: ``Aye'', rollcall 158: ``Aye'', rollcall 159: ``Aye'',
rollcall 160: ``Aye'', rollcall 161: ``Aye'', rollcall 162: ``Aye'',
rollcall 163: ``Aye'', rollcall 164: ``Aye'', rollcall 165: ``Aye'',
rollcall 166: ``Nay'', and rollcall 167: ``Aye''.
____________________