[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3320-3325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SMALL BUSINESS BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4596.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 640, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4596) to ensure that small business providers of 
broadband Internet access service can devote resources to broadband 
deployment rather than compliance with cumbersome regulatory 
requirements, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, shall be considered as 
adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered read.

[[Page 3321]]

  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4596

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Broadband 
     Deployment Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO ENHANCEMENT TO TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS 
                   FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--The enhancements to the transparency rule 
     of the Federal Communications Commission under section 8.3 of 
     title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as described in 
     paragraphs 162 through 184 of the Report and Order on Remand, 
     Declaratory Ruling, and Order of the Federal Communications 
     Commission with regard to protecting and promoting the open 
     Internet (adopted February 26, 2015) (FCC 15-24), shall not 
     apply to any small business.
       (b) Sunset.--Subsection (a) shall not have any force or 
     effect after the date that is 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Report by FCC.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report 
     that contains the recommendations of the Commission (and data 
     supporting such recommendations) regarding--
       (1) whether the exception provided by subsection (a) should 
     be made permanent; and
       (2) whether the definition of the term ``small business'' 
     for purposes of such exception should be modified from the 
     definition in subsection (d)(2).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Broadband internet access service.--The term 
     ``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (2) Small business.--The term ``small business'' means any 
     provider of broadband Internet access service that has not 
     more than 250,000 subscribers.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most important responsibilities we have as a 
Congress, I think, is to protect and advocate for those who may not 
have the power themselves or the influence or the armies of lawyers to 
contend with the redtape that all too often is created by our own 
government.
  The bill we are considering today helps them. It does just that. It 
relieves, we believe, an unnecessary regulatory burden on really small 
Internet service providers, the little ISPs out there all over our 
districts across the land that are struggling to compete in this 
marketplace.
  By extending an exemption to the Federal Communications Commission's 
enhanced transparency rules, this bill allows these small businesses to 
focus on their core mission which, by the way, is providing broadband 
Internet access to customers all across America.
  Over the last few months, we have spent a great deal of time focused 
on this issue. We first raised concerns with the Federal Communications 
Commission itself in a November letter from the Republican members of 
the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, as well as the Small 
Business Committee.
  We urged the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom 
Wheeler, to not only make the exemption that they had already had in 
their rules permanent, but also to raise that threshold for defining 
what a small business is to bring it in line with the definitions 
previously blessed by the Small Business Administration itself.
  Well, the FCC, instead, extended the exemption for just 1 year. That 
is hardly time enough from these very onerous reporting requirements to 
make a difference, a 1-year extension.
  Despite the overwhelming support in the record for a permanent 
extension, it was clear that Congress needed to act because the FCC 
wouldn't. So I introduced a discussion draft to get the conversation 
going that would permanently extend the exemption and would increase 
the threshold by defining a small business to match the definition used 
by the Small Business Administration itself.
  We had a hearing in January on this draft. We heard from a small 
business, an Internet service provider from a small community, who 
shared the dilemma that I think was indicative of what other small ISPs 
face in these circumstances.
  Should they put up new equipment and expand and improve their 
service?
  Or if they have to comply with all these reporting requirements 
called for by the FCC, they said, look, I am going to have to spend the 
money, instead, on hiring lawyers and other compliance officers to meet 
a reporting requirement that is new.
  Should they improve service for customers, or should they devote 
those financial resources to sifting through regulatory language and 
drafting expensive and extensive reports on esoteric metrics like 
``packet loss''?
  Now, often these small Internet service providers provide service to 
areas in the country that are rural, very rural, remote, or may not be 
as easy to serve or provide competitive options to customers of larger 
ISPs.
  We should be making all efforts to promote the viability of these 
upstarts, these businesses, these small entrepreneurs that are trying 
to fill the gaps, serve and compete in this very competitive 
marketplace.
  We should not be saddling them with additional requirements designed 
to snuff them out, basically, and that would make it more difficult for 
them to do the business that they want to participate in.
  While there was some initial disagreement about how to ease some of 
these regulatory burdens, Mr. Speaker, Representative Loebsack and I 
were able to come to a compromise through some very serious 
negotiations. It worked out well, the legislative process.
  We both agreed there is a problem. We said, okay, I don't really like 
this number; what about that number? We kept a focus on the mission and 
on the goal, which was to prevent this overreach of the Federal 
Government in the regulatory realm.
  So in our amended bill, we extend the exemption from this reporting 
requirement to 5 years. It seems like a reasonable number. This gives 
greater regulatory certainty to these very small Internet service 
providers looking for stability and predictability when they are making 
some, frankly, pretty expensive investment decisions on equipment and 
access and expansion.
  In addition, we increased the threshold for what is defining a small 
business from what the FCC had, and required the Federal Communications 
Commission to report back to Congress on this exemption, along with 
data about small ISPs that is currently lacking.
  They don't have all the data we think they need, so as their 
overseer, we are telling the FCC, go look at this, tell us what it 
means, come back to us. And we put a sunset on this as well so that 
Congress will have the opportunity in a couple of years to come back 
and say this makes sense; does it still make sense; is it in the best 
interest of consumers and innovation and development of technology in 
the marketplace.
  In the end, I think this legislation represents a really solid, 
thoughtful compromise that will relieve the burdens for our smallest 
Internet service providers while leaving in place really important 
protections for consumers, Mr. Speaker.
  See, this does not wipe out what they have to do to serve customers, 
the laws they have to follow, all that. That stays. We just said, you 
don't have to do this really burdensome, costly, technical reporting to 
the government.
  It is important to note that this bill does not affect the bright-
line rules for managing traffic or the transparency rules adopted in 
the FCC's 2010 rules. Customers will continue to have access to those 
disclosures they have come to expect, with the information needed to 
make informed decisions about their Internet service.
  So I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo, as well as, 
certainly, Mr. Loebsack, for working well with us on this bill.

[[Page 3322]]

  I would like to particularly thank Kelsey Guyselman, from the 
majority committee staff, and Ashley Shillingsburg from Representative 
Loebsack's staff--I hope I said that right--for their hard work in 
getting together and working this out.
  This bipartisan process has resulted in a strong piece of 
legislation, and I am confident it will actually protect many and 
promote continued network investment and build-out by small business so 
we have a more vibrant, competitive marketplace and more service into 
areas that otherwise might not ever get access to high-speed broadband 
which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is really important in places like 
Tennessee and Oregon and Iowa.
  This legislation represents a commonsense approach to a problem that 
directly impacts so many of our constituents, and this solution will 
enable our country to continue its leadership in broadband deployment.
  So I would urge my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, broadband development is a critical issue for my home 
State of Iowa, as it is for Congressman Walden's home State of Oregon, 
as it is for so many rural areas, in particular.
  We all know how important Internet access is for our constituents. 
Our students need access to the Internet to do their homework. Our 
businesses need the Internet to participate in the global economy and 
engage in the ever-growing world of e-commerce. Our healthcare 
providers need Internet access to serve patients with innovative 
telemedicine tools.

                              {time}  1230

  Our constituents simply can't compete in the 21st century economy 
that we live in without access to the Internet. It is really that 
simple.
  Broadband deployment is especially important in our country's rural 
areas. Less than half--only 47 percent--of Americans living in rural 
areas have access to broadband. We as legislators need to do what we 
can to get these essential services to our constituents.
  This bill is a commonsense, bipartisan measure, and I thank 
Congressman Walden for working with me on this bill that will help 
small Internet service providers throughout the country deploy 
broadband and serve our constituents.
  In my home State of Iowa, we have 134--that is 134. We have 99 
counties but 134 individual small ISPs. The smallest provider in our 
State is based in my district and serves only 100 subscribers.
  As a whole, these companies serve a median of only 750 subscribers. I 
am proud of the work done by these small businesses that serve the 
families and businesses that live on farms or in small towns that 
otherwise might not have any options.
  Small ISPs do not have the resources that the bigger guys do, and 
that is the important thing to remember with this bill. I support the 
FCC's enhanced transparency rules, and I think that it is important to 
make sure that consumers have the information they need to make 
informed decisions and to make sure they are protected. It is also 
important that we find a balance between providing consumers with 
technical information about their Internet and making sure that 
consumers have access in the first place.
  I have heard from small businesses in my district that these rules as 
proposed by the FCC will pose a significant burden and consume critical 
resources, potentially limiting their ability to invest in broadband 
development. For example, they have told me they would have to buy 
special equipment to measure things like packet loss on their networks. 
These are companies that may have only one technician on staff, so you 
can imagine the burden.
  To address these burdens, this bill would continue the FCC's 
exemption of small business from the enhanced transparency rules for 5 
years. It also instructs the FCC to gather data to determine the 
impacts of these rules so that we can revisit this issue down the road. 
When we revisit the issue, we have the opportunity then to figure out 
the best way to implement these important consumer protections going 
forward.
  This short-term exemption gives small ISPs some much-needed 
certainty, allowing them to focus their resources on broadband 
deployment and thus serving their consumers.
  I am glad that Mr. Walden and I were able to work together on a 
bipartisan compromise, and I thank our respective staffs as well. They 
did a great job.
  While the original bill would have permanently exempted companies 
from the FCC's rule, this bill sunsets after 5 years, giving companies 
time to comply and giving the FCC time to report back to Congress on 
the real impact of these rules on consumers.
  The original bill would have also exempted companies with 500,000 
subscribers and 1,500 employees. I and others on the subcommittee were 
concerned that this threshold was simply too high, and we were able to 
come to an agreement to exempt ISPs serving half that many subscribers.
  So this bill before us will give the certainty that small ISPs need, 
and it will help us achieve what I think we are all working for here, 
which is both expanded broadband access and the consumer protections 
that are needed by our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta). He is a very capable and able vice 
chair of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and a man 
from Ohio who has done incredible work on a whole range of these 
communications issues.
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4596, the Small Business 
Broadband Deployment Act. This legislation limits the regulatory burden 
on small Internet service providers, ISPs, serving rural America, just 
like in my area, and allows them to focus on improving services for 
consumers.
  The Federal Communications Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order 
included enhanced transparency rules for ISPs, requiring disclosure of 
commercial terms for prices and other fees and a number of complicated 
performance metrics. The FCC recognized that the burden of compliance 
would fall disproportionately on smaller providers and offered 
regulatory relief by temporarily exempting ISPs with 100,000 
subscribers or fewer.
  Today's bipartisan action will extend the exemption to 5 years and 
expand the definition of small broadband providers to fewer than 
250,000 subscribers. This commonsense proposal will help small and 
rural broadband providers across my district focus on investing in 
networks, deploying broadband, improving connectivity, and creating 
jobs.
  I thank Chairmen Upton and Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, and 
Congressman Loebsack for working together on this bill. I am proud to 
support H.R. 4596 and believe it will protect vital small ISPs who 
serve all of our constituents.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Communications and Technology.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 4596, the Small 
Business Broadband Deployment Act. There has been a lot said about it, 
and anyone who tunes in, it is not as complicated as it sounds.
  We know what the Internet represents. We know we want to expand 
broadband in our country. We know especially in the rural areas of our 
country that broadband and all that it represents has not reached 
everyone, and there are many small businesses that are working hard to 
bring broadband into the areas where people do not have access.
  We also have some critical protections for the consumers of 
broadband, and we wanted to make sure that we could protect the 
consumer but also

[[Page 3323]]

not burden the small businesses, and that is what this legislation 
represents.
  I am pleased that the bill includes the 5-year sunset provision, 
which is going to provide the FCC more time to study whether or not the 
exemption should be made permanent and how a small ISP should be 
defined.
  So, long story short, I think that this is a good bill. It represents 
a bipartisan effort, and I hope it works out the way the promises are 
being made about it.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side 
has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 21\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa has 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished and very 
effective majority leader of the United States House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his work on this.
  Mr. Speaker, government policy is stuck in the past. Regulators from 
20th century agencies are trying to manage and control a 21st century 
world--and it isn't working.
  The world is too complex and individual situations are too unique for 
a big, bulky government to try to apply standards to everyone. And 
every time government tries to micromanage the markets or the free 
exchange of ideas or the development of new technology, our country and 
our people fall behind. We lose out on new companies, new jobs, and new 
services.
  So, in the House, we want to free innovators from Silicon Valley to 
Boston by removing the obstacles that hold us back. We want 
breakthrough technologies and positive disruption that ensures American 
leadership around the world and brings government itself into the 21st 
century. It is our innovation initiative.
  Today, thanks to Greg Walden, we have the first bill from the 
innovation initiative on the floor, protecting the Internet for 
hundreds of thousands of users.
  The Internet is arguably the most dynamic contributor to a growing 
economy and higher quality of life in the world. It delivers 
information and education, supports new businesses and workers, and 
increases our ability to communicate and experience the world.
  But right now, small Internet service providers that bring Internet 
to homes and businesses in less populated parts of the United States 
worry that the Washington bureaucracy will swoop in and impose 
regulations on them, and this will create a compliance burden that 
could put them out of business.
  These small providers don't have enough resources to navigate the 
bureaucratic maze and bring broadband to communities at the same time. 
If these small Internet service providers go under, it could leave many 
people with limited Internet access or no access at all.
  The administration delayed these rules once, but that was only 
temporary. These small Internet providers need permanent relief so they 
can focus on doing the job of delivering Internet to the American 
people. So we are passing a bill today that lifts these regulations on 
small providers for good.
  We need to take every opportunity we can to create the space for 
innovation to thrive in this country. That is the purpose of our 
innovation initiative, and that is how we can make a more prosperous 
America that works for everyone.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who brings extensive 
experience in all of this realm, of both electric and communications, 
based on his vast background on this during his days on the Public 
Utility Commission in North Dakota. He has been a huge asset on our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walden for yielding the 
time and for his important leadership.
  I think it is worth noting, as I know Representative Loebsack and 
several of us from rural districts often get involved in issues like 
this, and I always like to remind people that Representative Walden's 
district is actually larger than the State of North Dakota. That is how 
rural we are. We all know Iowa is a rural State. I think this bill is a 
great representation of what happens when a coalition of rural States 
and districts get together and try to do the right thing for the people 
we work for. So it is a pleasure to be part of that.
  I will be brief because the leadership has already outlined the 
essence of the bill very effectively. I will spend just a minute or 2 
talking about the reality of the importance of this to a place like 
North Dakota and to places like rural Oregon or Iowa and other places 
where distance is greater than the population, where the advantages of 
access to something as dynamic as the Internet makes all the difference 
in the world for education opportunities, for health care 
accessibility, and, of course, for individual use.
  That is a challenge in rural America that, frankly, many of our small 
Internet service providers and communication and technology companies 
have been meeting all along with plenty of things going against them, 
not the least of which is: much of the deployment of broadband in rural 
America has been done, even when it is not necessarily economically 
advantageous to do it at the time, so that the burdensome regulations, 
intended or unintended, that came from the FCC rule just don't apply to 
everybody.
  I think that the standards that we have set in the negotiation that 
have created the benchmarks for access deployment are appropriate. And 
250,000 consumers and the size of the companies, I think, hits just 
right that sweet spot, not only because it was negotiated and it has 
got consensus, but because I think it is the right number. I think they 
are the right numbers.
  So we don't want to stifle innovation. We want to expand innovation, 
especially in something as dynamic as the Internet. This act does that. 
I am honored to be a part of it, and I am honored to be a member of the 
committee.
  I thank the Representative Eshoo as well as Representative Loebsack 
and certainly Chairman Walden for their leadership.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers on our side of the 
aisle, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank Chairman Walden for working on this, once again. Thanks to 
our staffs, again, for working on this compromise.
  There is just one last thing. I would like to remind folks that 
transparency is a good thing, and the FCC has good intentions when they 
talk about transparency and making sure that consumers understand what 
they are getting for their money. So, as far as I am concerned, we have 
to continue to provide that transparency, but we have to make sure that 
we do it in the way that we are doing it in this particular 
legislation, to have that balance that those ISPs, those small-sized 
ISPs, can continue to provide that access in the first place, as I 
mentioned already in my remarks.

                              {time}  1245

  I thank everyone who has worked on this. It is a great compromise. I 
wish that we could do this more often here in this body and over in the 
Senate. I am not such a Pollyanna to believe that this is the beginning 
of great things to happen, but I think we made real progress here.
  I again thank Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and our staffs 
for working on this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague from Iowa who has been a great 
partner in finding the right sweet spot here as we move forward on more 
telecommunication policy that will help us

[[Page 3324]]

allow these great innovators and inventors to go out and serve our 
constituents and offer competition in the marketplace and, not just 
because they are small, be snuffed out by a government that requires 
things they can't afford to do and takes money away from innovation.
  They still have to, as you know, follow all of the laws and all of 
the protections and all of that. It is just this reporting requirement 
seemed pretty onerous. In fact, obviously, the FCC thought it was when 
they first came out with their rule. We concur with that and extend 
that exemption on out.
  I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, I am really proud of the 
bipartisan work that Mr. Loebsack, myself, and others have done on our 
subcommittee.
  This marks the fifth piece of legislation that we have brought to the 
House floor in this Congress in one capacity or another. We passed the 
FCC consolidated reporting legislation, Mr. Speaker, unanimously across 
this House floor.
  This is designed to deal with the antiquated statutory requirements 
on reports that aren't needed, oftentimes aren't completed, and, yet, 
cost money to taxpayers and those who pay fees. So we have a 
consolidated report that is designed to simplify that process, save 
taxpayers money, and decrease the Federal bureaucracy a bit. That is 
over in the Senate now, Mr. Speaker.
  We passed FCC process reform legislation that we reached bipartisan 
agreement on as well. I think it passed unanimously through the House, 
Mr. Speaker.
  This is really important because we are trying to shed a little light 
on the FCC's activities and bring fairness and transparency to the 
Federal Communications Commission so that the public, the consumers, 
the stakeholders, all have a better opportunity to see how policy that 
will affect them is being deliberated and considered or even what is 
proposed. That bill is over in the Senate.
  Then we dealt with the issue of what we call the DOTCOM Act to make 
sure that, when the contract runs out on how the Internet naming agency 
and all works and all the IANA and ICANN pieces, that consumers are 
protected and will continue to have free Internet, free from government 
intrusion, free, as it has been, to innovate and create this enormous 
change. That passed the House I think with over 380 votes.
  The Spectrum Pipeline legislation actually was part of the bipartisan 
budget agreement we passed at the end of last year. So that is now in 
law, as a matter of fact.
  This marks, as I say, our fifth initiative to try to help this great 
sector of our economy continue to expand, that provides access to the 
world, and provides access to commerce and jobs in a rural setting.
  I can't tell you how important this is in a district such as mine 
where people now can locate in a smaller community, in a rural 
environment, with a great lifestyle, connect into the Internet, and be 
able to conduct commerce and grow jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fine piece of legislation, represents really 
solid work, and is really important to a lot of start-up and small 
companies across our country that we need to help grow, expand, and be 
the next competitor and the next one to really move up and give all us 
consumers more competition and better service.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I 
ask Members on both sides of the aisle to join us in bipartisan support 
of this legislation, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is also supported 
by the administration.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we have built a proud, bipartisan record of 
success, and this legislation will help our nation's small businesses 
which are the lifeblood of Michigan's economy, and the American economy 
as a whole. A quick look at the stats reveals small businesses 
represent 99.7 percent of all employers in the United States, and they 
are true job creators, consistently accounting for 60 to 80 percent of 
net new jobs in each of the past ten years.
  Small Internet providers in particular serve a unique role in 
connecting consumers across the country. They provide service to rural 
constituents, to other small businesses, and to areas of the country 
that otherwise would lack any alternative. They often do so with very 
few resources, relying on a smaller number of employees to do a great 
deal of work. The bill that we will vote on today makes sure that they 
can continue to do so without being hampered by regulatory burdens and 
red tape.
  The Small Business Broadband Deployment Act builds on the temporary 
steps taken by the Federal Communications Commission to exempt small 
providers from the enhanced transparency requirements adopted as part 
of the 2015 Open Internet Order. At the time, the Commission recognized 
that there could be a significant impact on smaller businesses, and 
rightfully exempted them from the requirements. However, the FCC's 
grant of a series of temporary exemptions does not give these 
businesses the certainty they need to make informed investment 
decisions.
  H.R. 4596 is a bipartisan solution to this problem. By extending the 
exemption for five years, and raising the threshold for the definition 
at a small business, this legislation will protect small businesses and 
ultimately benefit consumers. Keeping these entrepreneurs focused on 
laying fiber, building towers, and improving service means a better 
Internet experience for their customers, and more jobs. This is what 
they set out to accomplish when they started their businesses--serving 
their communities, not spending hours or days complying with a maze of 
regulations and piles of paperwork.
  Our committee spent a great deal of time considering this problem. In 
addition, the robust record at the FCC in support of the exemption 
confirmed our view that this extension was necessary. We heard directly 
from witnesses like the president of a small fixed wireless provider, a 
former FCC commissioner, and a public interest representative. Their 
input both on how important this bill is, and on how to improve our 
early draft bill, helped us to come to the final version we are 
considering today.
  Subcommittee Chairman Walden and Representative Loebsack worked in a 
bipartisan way to come to a consensus on legislation that achieves all 
of our goals. The final product is a bill that we can all be proud to 
support, and I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense solution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Veasey

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
1 printed in part A of House Report 114-453.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 4, insert before the semicolon the following: 
     ``, including whether making such exception permanent would 
     increase access to services provided by small businesses''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 640, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
4596, which simply adds an additional component to the required report 
from the FCC.
  My amendment requests the agency to also answer whether a permanent 
exemption from enhanced disclosure for small Internet providers, or 
ISPs, could increase access to the services offered by these small 
businesses. As many of you already know, these exemptions were created 
in the FCC's most recent update to the open Internet order.
  As Congress considers modifying or making this exemption permanent, 
it is important to know the impact this would have for those people the 
order was intended to protect, in this case, the consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, the real purpose of a permanent exemption should not be 
to just lighten the load for these businesses, but also to increase 
access to broadband services in general.
  Even in urban areas, like the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex that I 
represent, there is still an alarming number of people without access 
to all broadband services. Congress must work to enact evidence-based 
policy to expand Internet access.

[[Page 3325]]

  My amendment would simply have the FCC provide additional information 
regarding the effects of a permanent extension on a small ISP's 
consumer base.
  However, after speaking with my colleagues, including the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), I am confident that the goal of my amendment 
will be achieved through the bill itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I thank the 
gentleman for his participation in this process and debate. I look 
forward to working with him on these issues. I share his concern, and I 
appreciate his participation. As I say, the door is always open and 
happy to continue. We all want the same outcome here for our consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, I failed to include in the Record a letter of 
support for our underlying bill signed by the heads of the American 
Cable Association; CCA; CTIA; United States Telecom Association; WISPA, 
the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association; WTA, Advocates for 
Rural Broadband, the rural broadband coalition; and the National Cable 
& Telecommunications Association, so I would like to include that in 
the Record in support of this effort.

                                                   March 15, 2016.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank Pallone,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Commerce, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone: We write to 
     express our strong support for H.R. 4596, the Small Business 
     Broadband Deployment Act, which is scheduled to be considered 
     by the full House of Representatives tomorrow.
       We commend you, and Communications & Technology 
     Subcommittee Chairman Walden and Representative Loebsack, for 
     crafting a common-sense bill that provides small broadband 
     providers with greater certainty than the Federal 
     Communications Commission's temporary exemption from the 
     enhanced transparency obligations adopted as part of the Open 
     Internet Order. In multiple industry submissions to the 
     Federal Communications Commission (FCC), including filings 
     regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act, small providers 
     demonstrated that the enhanced requirements would impose 
     time-consuming and costly compliance obligations; yet, the 
     FCC only extended the existing temporary exemption for a 
     limited time. After reviewing the record at the FCC and 
     receiving testimony at its hearing on the legislation in 
     January, the Communications & Technology Subcommittee found 
     there was more than sufficient evidence to further expand and 
     extend the exemption.
       We are gratified that the Committee has produced a 
     bipartisan bill that will enable small broadband providers to 
     focus their financial and human resources on providing high-
     quality broadband service to their customers rather than 
     dealing with new regulatory obligations. We urge support for 
     H.R. 4596 and look forward to its approval tomorrow.
         President and CEO of American Cable Association, 
           President and CEO of CCA, President and CEO of CTIA, 
           President and CEO of National Cable & 
           Telecommunications Association, Chief Executive Officer 
           of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, President and 
           CEO of United States Telecom Association, Executive 
           Vice President of WTA--Advocates for Rural Broadband, 
           Legislative Committee Chair of WISPA.

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment 
is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  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.
  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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________