[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4127-4131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2666, NO RATE REGULATION OF 
                     BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 672 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 672

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2666) to prohibit the Federal Communications 
     Commission from regulating the rates charged for broadband 
     Internet access service. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 672 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of Broadband 
Internet Access Act.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
majority and the minority of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  The Committee on Rules made in order three amendments that were 
submitted to the committee, all three of which were submitted by the 
minority.
  Finally, the rule affords the minority the customary motion to 
recommit, a

[[Page 4128]]

final opportunity to amend the legislation should the minority choose 
to exercise that option.
  H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act, 
was introduced by Mr. Kinzinger, a member of the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee, to address the issue of an out-of-control 
independent agency, the Federal Communications Commission, or the FCC.
  The bill is targeted and does one thing only. It prohibits the 
Federal Communications Commission from regulating the rates charged for 
broadband Internet access.
  In February of 2015, the Federal Communications Commission voted on a 
party-line vote to adopt rules that reclassify broadband Internet 
access as a title II telecommunications service, reversing their 
previously stated position that they would not reclassify the Internet 
under title II, and, in fact, afterwards, the President himself 
interjected into the debate and demanded that the Commission reconsider 
and that they do so.
  The rules prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of 
the Internet. This reclassification poses a serious risk for the 
regulation of rates charged by providers for the delivery of Internet 
service, a move that has never before been taken by the government.
  Under the Federal Communications Commission's unprecedented use of a 
100-year-old statute to regulate the Internet under its net neutrality 
rule, the Commission gave itself the authority to regulate the rates 
that Internet service providers charge to consumers for service.
  In response to this power grab by the Commission, the Energy and 
Commerce Committee held oversight hearings. That resulted in the 
drafting and passage of the legislation before the House this week, 
which is intended to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from 
using reclassification of broadband Internet service to engage in rate 
regulation, whether that be directly through tariffing or indirectly 
through enforcement actions.
  Rate regulation--or even the threat of rate regulation--out of the 
Federal Communications Commission creates massive uncertainty for 
Internet service providers. Because of this, Internet service providers 
could slow or stop altogether the investment and will be less likely to 
offer specialized or unique pricing offers to their consumers.
  As the Federal Communications Commission consolidates more and more 
power to regulate the Internet--and make no mistake, the Federal 
Communications Commission is very eager to regulate the Internet--
providers will have fewer and fewer avenues for providing consumer 
service plans and packages.
  The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler, 
and President Obama have both stated that net neutrality rules would 
not result in the FCC regulating rates.
  Yet, less than a year after the rules were adopted in March of 2016 
during an Energy and Commerce hearing, Chairman Wheeler admitted that 
the FCC should and will have the authority to regulate broadband rates 
under these new rules.
  Like all government agencies, the Federal Communications Commission 
can't help itself. It sees an unregulated space--the Internet--and it 
just can't allow it to go on without government control.
  Under net neutrality, the Federal Government will have the ability to 
control the Internet. Let me say that again. Under net neutrality, the 
Federal Government will have the ability to control the Internet.
  Even if this current Federal Communications Commission chooses not to 
regulate the rates charged, the Commission's net neutrality rules 
permit future FCC commissioners to do exactly that.
  These rules from the Federal Communications Commission have the 
potential to cost well north of 43,000 jobs, according to a recent 
study commissioned by the United States Telecom Association. The bill 
before us this week will take a step toward protecting the Internet 
industry from those job losses.
  I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and support the 
underlying legislation to protect consumers from an out-of-control 
Federal bureaucracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just days before the legally mandated budget 
deadline. Yet, instead of debating your budget, Mr. Speaker, my budget, 
Mr. Speaker, anybody's budget, Mr. Speaker, we are debating whether to 
codify existing FCC policy.
  There is limited time to provide a budget for our country. Households 
across our country have budgets, and businesses have budgets. Unless 
there is an announced change to the schedule in bringing Congress to 
work on Friday and Saturday and Rules Committee convening today or 
tomorrow, it seems like Congress will miss the deadline for the budget 
and perhaps never produce a budget.
  Now, folks on the other side will say that there have been years 
Democrats didn't produce a budget, and that is true. But Republicans 
ran to take over this body, saying: We are going to do better. We are 
going to produce a budget. Republicans have had the chance, and there 
is not even a vote on the budget.
  I am going to offer later in this debate a motion to defeat the 
previous question. If that passes, Mr. Speaker, I will be able to offer 
an amendment to the rule to bring up the budget resolution.
  I hope it does. I hope there are enough Democrats and Republicans in 
this Chamber who are outraged by the failure of the Republican 
leadership to allow the Republican and Democratic Members of this body 
to present and vote on their budgets.

                              {time}  1230

  We have historically had a very open process around budgets. There is 
usually five or six budgets that come before the House and we try to 
get to one that passes. There have been years where I think they have a 
king of the hill process and whichever one gets the most votes can 
become the budget.
  But it looks like, rather than any of those debates or give Members 
who have thoughtfully been preparing the budgets from the Republican 
Study Group or from the progressive Democratic coalition the chance to 
present their budgets, along with the Republican and Democratic members 
of the Budget Committee, I think the Republicans are saying: we don't 
want to have those tough decisions about where to cut or where to tax; 
we would rather just pretend like our country is in good fiscal order 
and spend the day discussing codifying FCC policy rather than 
discussing what the American people sent us here to do--how to balance 
the budget, restore fiscal stability, and pass a budget.
  There is another missed opportunity here today. When talking about 
broadband--if that is what we are going to talk about--in districts 
like mine in Colorado, we have communities that simply don't have 
reasonable access to the Internet. I talk to constituents in Evergreen 
and Conifer in Grand County every day, rapidly growing communities, 
where people only have access to speeds that were more relevant to the 
20th century rather than the 21st century. I remember I visited a 
school in Grand County where the district has an initiative to provide 
every child with a Chromebook computer and the computer science teacher 
there didn't even have high-speed access from his own home.
  Access to broadband is essential for our economy, particularly our 
rural economy like those in my district. It is essential for the 
education of our kids, for a vibrant private sector, for civil society, 
and democracy. While the FCC and the Department of Commerce have some 
tools in place, there is not nearly the tools they need or the 
resources to make our Nation competitive coast to coast by making sure 
that every American has access to broadband.
  Bills that try to codify regulations certainly have their place. I 
would

[[Page 4129]]

argue it is probably not when we are 48 hours from reaching a budget 
deadline. But I want to make sure that even if we are going to spend 
time discussing codifying FCC policy, that we have the more important 
discussion about how we can make sure that broadband access is 
available to our rural communities, such as the ones that I represent.
  Democrats and Republicans largely agree on some of the goals of this 
bill. In fact, I think there is a missed opportunity to have worked on 
a bipartisan version that likely could have passed on suspension. There 
are a number of amendments under consideration, and it is my hope that 
some of the consumer protection issues can be addressed through that.
  But I think the big picture here, Mr. Speaker, is we are just 2 days 
away from Congress' own deadline for passing a budget with no budget in 
sight. If we can defeat the previous question, we can immediately move 
to consider the budget. I call upon my Republican and Democratic 
colleagues to do that. As we look at broadband, which I am hopeful that 
we can do after this deadline passes--I am happy to revisit this bill 
if my motion to defeat the previous question passes and we move into 
the budget debate--I will be happy to resume this debate next week. I 
haven't seen any particular reason that we have to try to cram in 
codifying FCC regulations around broadband in the 48 hours before our 
own budget deadline expires.
  So let's get back to talking about the budget. It is never easy. The 
Republicans have certainly talked about how they wanted the country to 
have a budget. Well, the country is not going to have a budget unless 
Congress gets to work debating it and passing it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I rise to oppose the rule on this legislation, not necessarily 
because this is a bad bill--I do think it is a vague solution in search 
of a nonexistent problem--but I oppose the rule for another reason, and 
that is because I thought that since we were going to bring this bill 
to the floor anyway, even though it is unnecessary, even though 
Chairman Wheeler of the FCC has said that the FCC does not intend to 
regulate rates on broadband, I thought maybe I would at least try to 
accomplish something productive and offer an amendment to solve a real 
problem that the American people are seeing in front of them every day 
right now. That is the problem of television ads, political ads, that 
do not truly identify their source.
  Under section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC requires 
broadcasters to put on the ad the true identity of the people running 
the ad. This makes a lot of sense. The idea is that when you see 
somebody trying to influence your vote or to influence your attitude 
about a particular public issue, that you should understand who is 
actually trying to influence you.
  But because of dramatic changes in the way campaign laws are 
implemented and because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, 
what has happened is that we now have ads run by organizations like 
Americans for Kittens and Puppies, and that doesn't do the American 
voter, the American consumer, any good. They don't understand who is 
actually paying.
  What my amendment would have done, had it been made in order by the 
Rules Committee, it would have basically restated the law that exists 
and say the FCC should regulate these ads by requiring the true 
identity. Right now they are relying on a 1979 staff interpretation of 
true identity. They are saying we need to put the sponsor of the ad on 
the ad, but the sponsor of the ad, again, is a nebulous, vague, title 
organization that nobody knows who they are.
  What we would like to do is say you have to put on the ad who is 
really paying for it. So instead, for instance, if you had an ad in 
support of sugared soft drinks and it was being paid for by Coca-Cola, 
under this interpretation you could put the ad agency that actually put 
the ad on the air and nobody would know that Coca-Cola was actually 
paying for it.
  The people, again, are seeing this every day on their television 
screens right now. These laws and interpretations have resulted in 
endless sums of anonymous money coming into the system trying to 
influence the outcomes of our elections. That is not what Congress 
intended. Despite having the authority to do it, the FCC has refused to 
take action to close this loophole.
  My amendment would have restated the original Congressional intent 
and would send a message to the FCC that it is time to act. This 
amendment would have been germane, it would have been within the rules 
of the body, and, most importantly, it would have been supported by the 
vast majority of Americans: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents 
who want us to reform our campaign finance system so that it is on the 
up and up, so people understand who is trying to influence them and 
also to end the influence of big money in politics.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I wish that the Rules Committee had made that amendment 
in order, but they didn't, so I will oppose the rule and urge my 
colleagues to do so.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from 
Colorado how many additional speakers he has?
  Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. In which case, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up the Republican budget resolution and 
allow for consideration of alternative budget proposals under a similar 
process to that which we have used every year in recent history. It is 
truly time for the Republicans to stop the partisan game and finally 
consider a budget before this Friday's legally mandated deadline.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Americans get it. Households have to balance 
their budget, businesses have to balance their budget. Not talking 
about it and putting your head in the sand is only a recipe for 
increased debt and increased liability for future generations of 
Americans.
  The fact that we are spending $400 billion or $500 billion more than 
we are taking in--of course we might not know about that for the next 
year until after the fact if we don't have a budget--the fact that we 
have enormous unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security 
doesn't go away just because Republicans ignore the topic and refuse to 
have a debate on balancing our budget.
  I am proud to sponsor a balanced budget amendment. I think that by 
working together, Democrats and Republicans can restore fiscal 
responsibility to our Nation.
  How can we do it?
  Well, I will tell you how we can't do it. We can't do it by 48 hours 
from the deadline to pass a budget by discussing obscure bills to 
codify FCC regulations with our valuable floor time.
  It starts with an honest discussion. It starts with Democrats and 
Republicans offering their budgets. I have been proud in the past to 
support bipartisan budgets that have come to this body. I have 
supported and opposed some of the Democratic budgets that my colleagues 
have offered, but we have to have that discussion on the floor. The 
work doesn't do itself and the problem doesn't go away when Republicans 
choose to ignore it.

[[Page 4130]]

  I wish our budget deficit was as easy to solve as simply ignoring it. 
Wouldn't that be convenient if we could simply ignore the budget 
deficit and it would go away? Wouldn't it be convenient if we could 
just ignore the national debt and it would go away? Wouldn't it be 
convenient if we could ignore the damage to agencies that an 
indiscriminate sequester has caused and it would simply go away?
  I like that line of thinking, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, it is 
completely unrealistic. The American people realize it is completely 
unrealistic. That is why when America looks to Congress and says: we 
have these discussions in our households about our budget, and 
businesses have these discussions. Why can't you, Mr. Speaker? Why 
can't you? That is the reason the Congressional approval rating is so 
low.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, back in the late 1990s, in the middle of what was called 
the dot-com boom, my predecessor, the then-majority leader of the House 
of Representatives, Richard Armey, came and spoke to the Dallas Chamber 
of Commerce. The purpose of his discussion that day was to talk about 
the dot-com boom that the economy was experiencing.
  He confessed that the Internet was the gosh darnedest thing, no one 
had ever seen anything like it, but he cautioned us. As business 
leaders that day, he cautioned us. He said: Look, when the government 
doesn't understand something, the first thing it will want to do is 
regulate it, the next thing it will want to do is tax it, and you have 
then effectively killed it.
  Mr. Speaker, it wasn't an accident that I used in the opening 
statement the language that under the proposed rules from the FCC, the 
Federal Government will have the ability to control the Internet. That 
is a significant and important fact. If you allow the Federal 
Government to control the Internet, you have effectively damaged the 
promise of the Internet to the point where it will no longer function 
for its citizens the way it was intended to function: as a free and 
open process.
  Mr. Speaker, it is pretty simple. Today's rule provides for 
consideration of a bill to rein in the Federal Government that is all 
too eager to regulate every aspect of our lives.
  H.R. 2666 will protect the Internet from government regulation and 
allow it to continue to thrive without interference.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Kinzinger for his work on this 
legislation, and I want to thank the committee for the work that they 
did in getting this legislation to the floor.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 672 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 125) establishing the 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017 
     and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2018 through 2026. The first reading of the concurrent 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with 
     three hours of general debate confined to the congressional 
     budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 
     one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals 
     and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Tiberi of Ohio and Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York 
     or their respective designees. After general debate the 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
     the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     amendments in the nature of a substitute. Each such amendment 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI 
     (germaneness). If more than one such amendment is adopted, 
     then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative 
     votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In the case of 
     a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, then only 
     the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative 
     votes shall be considered as finally adopted. After the 
     conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
     amendment and a final period of general debate, which shall 
     not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent 
     resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been 
     finally adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto 
     to adoption without intervening motion except amendments 
     offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget pursuant 
     to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     to achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent 
     resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question of its adoption.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of 
     January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 4131]]


  Mr. POLIS. 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.

                          ____________________