[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4402-4417]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          NO RATE REGULATION OF BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS 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 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 2666.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaMalfa). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2666.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 4403]]



                              {time}  0913


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2666) to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 
regulating the rates charged for broadband Internet access service, 
with Mr. Duncan of Tennessee in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation 
of Broadband Internet Access Act.
  From the first indication that the Federal Communications Commission 
intended to reclassify broadband Internet access service as a title II 
service subject to utility regulation, the Subcommittee on 
Communications and Technology has made it a priority to ensure that the 
FCC bureaucracy never has the authority to actually get in and 
micromanage and regulate rates.
  The Internet is a model of innovation, flourishing under decades of 
light-touch or no-touch regulation. That is how it has flourished, Mr. 
Chairman.

                              {time}  0915

  In recent years, as the FCC has repeatedly attempted to regulate the 
management of Internet traffic, the potential reach of those 
regulations has grown, prompting concerns that the FCC would retreat to 
the world of rate regulation that typified the monopoly telephone era.
  Unfortunately, these fears proved well-founded when the FCC announced 
in early 2015, Mr. Chairman, that it would reclassify the Internet as a 
utility-style service as part of the newest net neutrality rules--rules 
that are currently being challenged in the courts, I might add.
  I would like to begin by addressing one of the most common attacks 
against this legislation, Mr. Chairman: that we are attempting to 
``gut'' the FCC's authority to implement net neutrality rules. That 
simply is not the case.
  We are supportive of clear, bright-line rules of the road for ISPs 
and the way they treat Internet traffic. We are for that. In fact, last 
year I released a discussion draft bill, along with Chairman Upton and 
Senator Thune, that would codify those very rules.
  What we don't support is the use of outdated, ill-suited regulations 
to achieve those goals. This bill isn't intended to touch the net 
neutrality rules, and, in fact, an amendment I offered up in committee 
markup goes so far as to make an explicit exemption to ensure that the 
bill would not impact the FCC's work to ban paid prioritization. What 
this bill does is prohibit the FCC from regulating the amount charged 
to a consumer by an ISP for the provision of broadband service, a fact 
made clear by our definitions.
  There is another objection, Mr. Chairman, we have heard repeatedly, 
and that is that the FCC had chosen to forbear from several of the 
provisions in title II and that the Chairman of the FCC had promised 
not to regulate rates anyway, so this bill is really unnecessary.
  Again, this is simply not the case. The FCC did forbear from various 
sections of title II, but the authority to regulate rates through 
enforcement was and is still very much on the table. In addition, while 
Chairman Wheeler did promise before our subcommittee and multiple other 
committees of the Congress that he would not regulate rates, there was 
nothing to bind him or his successors to that commitment.
  The need for the certainty of a statutory ban on rate regulation 
became even clearer just a few weeks ago when the bill's sponsor, 
Representative Kinzinger, actually asked the Chairman of the FCC, 
Chairman Wheeler, whether he believed the FCC should have the authority 
to regulate rates. Chairman Wheeler's response: ``Yes, sir.''
  Given the philosophy of the Chairman himself, it is clearly more 
pressing than ever that this bill becomes law. The FCC cannot and 
should not be able to regulate the rates charged by ISPs to their 
customers. This sort of regulatory overhang clouds the decisionmaking 
of providers and dissuades them from offering innovative, pro-consumer 
pricing plans and service offerings, lest the Commission come back 
after the fact and penalize them.
  Take T-Mobile's Binge On service as a prime example. Consumers are 
able to access video offered by any participant in the program without 
that data counting toward their monthly usage limits or charges. Edge 
providers win because their content is viewed more often. The service 
provider wins because they actually attract more customers. It is 
called the marketplace. It is innovation in the marketplace responding 
to what consumers want. Most importantly, consumers win because they 
are able to access the desired content with no cost or penalty.
  Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
  Now, I am not here to advocate for one company over another, but this 
is called innovation in the marketplace. This is what entrepreneurship 
is all about. But, unfortunately, under the opaque rules of the FCC, T-
Mobile had no way of knowing whether this sort of Binge On pricing 
scheme would violate the Commission's rules. They didn't know.
  And while T-Mobile has taken this risk, many providers may now choose 
not to do so, ultimately depriving customers of choices they otherwise 
would have. You see, everybody is a little afraid, does this Chairman 
or the next Chairman come back, after the fact, and say: Well, you 
know, that is really not something we think is too dandy to do, so we 
are going to penalize you. It is called after-the-fact regulation.
  So, as an unfortunate corollary to this chapter of Internet history, 
the same kind of flip-flop we are concerned we will see on rate 
regulation is exactly what we have seen with respect to Binge On. You 
see, Chairman Wheeler was ``okay with it'' until he decided maybe not.
  As a former businessowner myself, I can tell you that you can't make 
business additions based on a hope and a prayer of your regulator. I 
was actually regulated by the FCC. I knew the rules. I followed them. 
They were clear. They were bright-line.
  In an incredibly innovative marketplace, which the Internet thrives 
in, can you imagine having the lack of clarity and the ability to go 
back after the fact and, in effect, rate regulate? This will stifle 
competition, innovation, and consumer choice.
  Finally, I would like to address charges that this bill would leave 
customers helpless to overcharge, or worse, by ISPs. We would all share 
that concern. We don't want that, and this bill provides protection.
  The notion that the FCC, an agency that didn't have authority over 
Internet service providers' rates until last year--until last year--is 
the only line of defense between customers and fraud is, frankly, 
silly. It is a silly claim.
  Customers have gotten along just fine without the aid of the FCC 
regulating rates; and this notion that the FCC is the only cop on the 
beat for consumers would come as a surprise--a real surprise--to many 
States attorneys general and consumer advocates across the Nation. All 
those protections, and fraud, abuse still prevail out there.
  This bill is a carefully tailored piece of legislation that is 
targeted at just one thing--one thing, Mr. Chairman--and that is 
unnecessary bureaucratic, Washington-based rate regulation. We used the 
most narrow definition, inserted rules of construction, and made 
specific exemptions to the prohibition, all in an attempt to address 
the concerns that were raised by the witnesses in our hearings that we 
held, Mr. Chairman, Members at markup and others who participated in 
the process.
  We listened to all of those voices say: How do we make this right? 
How do we make it narrow? How do we get at just the issue here of a 
bureaucracy that

[[Page 4404]]

wants to expand and grow and micromanage and rate regulate?
  We sought to prevent unintended consequences, unlike the FCC, who 
crafted their rules to have the broadest and furthest reaching scope. 
Imagine that, Mr. Chairman, from a bureaucracy that writes rules, that 
they would write rules that are broadly written so they have more power 
for themselves. In fact, many of the changes we made to the bill at 
full committee markup were inspired by an amendment offered by 
Representative Matsui of California. Drawing on her suggested changes, 
we amended the bill to be a more targeted draft.
  We also considered amendments by multiple other Members of Congress 
but felt that they would not have resulted in the kind of prohibition 
that this situation narrowly calls for, one that clearly prohibits all 
flavors of ratemaking, not just before-the-fact tariffing where they 
say you can charge $7, that is it--that would be tariffing before the 
fact--but also after-the-fact regulation, where they come back, Mr. 
Chairman, and say: Oh, by the way, whatever you were charging, we have 
now kind of thought about that, and we think it was too much or too 
little or whatever.
  While I am disappointed that so many of my colleagues across the 
aisle cannot support this bill, it wasn't for lack of trying. It wasn't 
for lack of a hearings process or taking many of their suggestions to 
heart and modifying our underlying text. I nonetheless, though, 
strongly believe that this legislation is an essential step in 
maintaining the robust and vibrant Internet ecosystem that drives our 
economy, powers innovations, and prompts and promotes new jobs and 
investment like no other service. The last thing we want to throw on 
there is the cold water of Washington bureaucracy after-the-fact 
regulation that will stifle competition and innovation that has so 
benefited consumers in this great Internet economy in which we find 
ourselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2666, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a bill that the majority has 
titled the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act. It 
sounds terrific.
  On the surface, this bill appears to do what Democrats and 
Republicans both support. We both support this. What we support is very 
clear: preventing the FCC from setting the monthly rate that customers 
pay for Internet access service. But in reality, this bill is about 
undermining the FCC's authority to protect consumers and ensure a free 
and open Internet for all.
  I listened very carefully to the chairman, whom I respect, who is my 
friend, talking about innovation, talking about the effect that that 
has on so much that we do.
  I represent the innovation capital of our country and the world, 
Silicon Valley, so I think that I understand something about innovation 
and the ingredients that make it work. As the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, I have made it very clear that I do not support setting 
rates for customers to pay on Internet access, nor do any of my 
Democratic colleagues on the committee.
  In fact--and the chairman left this out. The chairman left this out. 
In fact, during the subcommittee and full committee markup of this 
bill, I offered an airtight, one-page amendment, right here--right 
here, one-page amendment--to codify that the FCC will permanently 
forbear from setting the rates that customers pay for Internet access. 
It is airtight. It is as clear as a bell, but it was rejected twice.
  Now, why would the majority reject exactly what they say they are 
seeking? It is a good question. It is a rhetorical question, but it 
should be raised. I think it is because this bill is about more than 
the FCC setting the rates that customers pay for Internet access.
  The FCC is the cop on the beat in the communications marketplace. 
That means the FCC has the responsibility to keep watch over the 
companies that provide our cell phone, cable, and Internet services to 
ensure that everyone is treated fairly.
  I think, in the absence of the following, not one consumer 
organization in the country supports the bill that is on the floor 
because it is overly broad. The definition of rate regulation in this 
bill leaves the door open for courts to strike down the FCC's authority 
to protect consumers and act in the public interest if they interpret 
any of its actions as impacting broadband Internet rates. That is what 
this bill does. That is what we object to. We do not object to, 
essentially, what the title of the bill is, No Rate Regulation of 
Broadband Internet Access.
  These protections include prohibiting Internet service providers, 
ISPs, from capping the amount of data that customers can use; outlawing 
pay-for-privacy agreements where consumers have to pay fees to avoid 
having their data collected and sold to third parties; enforcing net 
neutrality rules against blocking Web sites; and reviewing mergers that 
increase consolidation and limit choice in the broadband Internet 
market.
  As I said a moment ago, it is no wonder this bill is opposed by over 
70 public interest groups, including the National Hispanic Media 
Coalition, the Consumer Federation of America, and the National 
Consumer Law Center. And the White House has said that it will veto the 
bill.
  We could have come here with a very simple bill that essentially is 
what my amendment stated: no rate regulation. That is what the majority 
says that they are for, except the bill goes way beyond that.
  I want to make it clear to my colleagues and to the American people 
that may be tuned in to this debate: This bill, in its broadness, is an 
attack on consumers and an attack on the FCC's net neutrality rules. 
Now, that is not a surprise because the majority has never supported 
that. And that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2666.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record three letters from consumer 
organizations.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                                                   April 12, 2016.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker,
     House of Representatives.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: We understand that 
     floor consideration of H.R. 2666, the ``No Rate Regulation of 
     Broadband Internet Access Act,'' is expected following a 
     meeting of the House Committee on Rules this week.
       The undersigned groups strongly urge you and your 
     colleagues to vote against H.R. 2666, because it would block 
     the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from fulfilling 
     its essential consumer-protection responsibilities. This 
     would be disastrous for all of the people and businesses in 
     America that use the Internet. Simply, H.R. 2666 would 
     prevent the FCC from doing its job to protect the American 
     people.
       H.R. 2666's overly broad definitions and undefined language 
     would create extreme regulatory uncertainty. It would 
     hamstring the FCC's ability to carry out its congressionally-
     mandated responsibilities. The impacts of this legislation 
     are wide-ranging and difficult to fully enumerate, given the 
     broad definitions of ``rates'' and ``regulation'' in the 
     bill, which conflict with legal precedent. Yet several 
     harmful impacts are readily apparent.
       First, it is clear that the bill is yet another attempt to 
     undermine the FCC's Open Internet Order and the principles of 
     net neutrality. The Order ``expressly eschew[ed] the future 
     use of prescriptive, industry-wide rate regulation'' and the 
     FCC forbore from the legal authorities that enable it to set 
     rates.
       Although the FCC is not setting rates, stripping away its 
     authority to review monopoly charges and other unjust and 
     unreasonable business practices would harm everyone. It would 
     especially harm the families and small businesses that rely 
     on an affordable and open Internet to find jobs, do 
     schoolwork, or reach consumers to compete in the 21st century 
     global marketplace.
       This legislation threatens the FCC's ability to enforce 
     merger conditions that provide low-cost broadband to 
     disadvantaged communities, harming low-income Americans who 
     already have limited broadband access, and further widening 
     the digital divide.
       It would give a free ride to companies currently imposing 
     punitive data caps and introducing zero-rating schemes, which 
     the FCC has rightly questioned and continues to investigate. 
     And despite the bill's imprecise references to 
     interconnection and paid

[[Page 4405]]

     prioritization, it would leave open the very real possibility 
     that these companies may try to extort and extract additional 
     payments from websites and applications to reach their 
     customers--even though the ability to download and upload the 
     content of their choosing is exactly what broadband customers 
     pay for.
       By using the term interconnection in an undefined manner, 
     H.R. 2666 also creates significant uncertainty about what, if 
     anything, the FCC can do to protect the public from 
     interconnection-related harms. Congestion at interconnection 
     points--locations where the Internet's backbone 
     infrastructure connects to last-mile providers such as 
     Comcast and AT&T--has hurt consumers and online businesses in 
     recent years, and this bill would leave the public vulnerable 
     to those harms.
       Lastly, the legislation would undermine the FCC's efforts 
     to protect consumer privacy, including oversight of so-called 
     ``pay-for-privacy'' plans that require customers to pay 
     significant additional fees to their broadband provider to 
     avoid having their online data collected and sold to third 
     parties.
       In sum, the broad definition of ``regulation'' in H.R. 2666 
     would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the FCC to 
     review and then prohibit even clearly anti-competitive and 
     anti-consumer actions by broadband companies. Under the bill, 
     broadband providers could characterize any and every rule or 
     determination the FCC makes as a ``rate regulation'' if it 
     prevents these ISPs from charging abusive penalties or tolls.
       Over four million Americans called for the FCC to protect 
     an open Internet. It is time for members of Congress to stop 
     sneak attacks that would allow big cable companies to break 
     net neutrality rules without consequences. We strongly 
     believe that the limited and inadequate exemptions in the 
     current bill are neither credible nor sufficient. These 
     limited exceptions for a small number of regulatory issues 
     are not enough, as they simply create opportunities for 
     companies to circumvent them.
       Congress has made the FCC the guardian of the public 
     interest. The Commission must be able to protect America's 
     Internet users from unreasonable business practices.
       It is unfortunate that the Energy & Commerce Committee 
     Majority twice rejected proposed compromises that would have 
     been harmonious with the FCC's decision not to set broadband 
     rates, while ensuring the Commission still had the ability to 
     protect consumers. Instead, this bill is little more than a 
     wolf in sheep's clothing that would reduce the FCC's 
     oversight abilities and strip away communications rights for 
     hundreds of millions of Americans.
       We respectfully urge you to vote against this bill to show 
     your support for America's consumers and businesses that need 
     the free and open Internet.
           Sincerely,
       18MillionRising.org, Alternate ROOTS, Arts & Democracy, 
     Center for Media Justice (CMJ), Center for Rural Strategies, 
     Cogent Communications, Inc., Color Of Change, Common Cause, 
     Common Frequency, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of 
     America, Consumer Watchdog, Daily Kos, Demand Progress, 
     Engine, Faithful Internet, Families for Freedom, Fight for 
     the Future, Free Press Action Fund, FREE! Families Rally for 
     Emancipation and Empowerment.
       Future of Music Coalition, Generation Justice, Global 
     Action Project (GAP.), Greenlining Institute, Human Rights 
     Defense Center, Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de 
     California (IDEPSCA), Line Break Media, Martinez Street 
     Women's Center, Media Action Center, Media Mobilizing 
     Project, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-
     income clients, National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), New 
     America's Open Technology Institute, Ohio Valley 
     Environmental Coalition, Open Access Connections, People's 
     Press Project, PhillyCAM, Progressive Technology Project, 
     Prometheus Radio Project, Public Knowledge.
       School for Designing a Society, St. Paul Neighborhood 
     Network (SPNN), TURN, United Church of Christ, OC Inc., 
     Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, Voices for Racial 
     Justice, Women Action Media, Working Films, Working 
     Narratives, Writers Guild of America, West.
                                  ____



                                               Consumer Union,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2016.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker,
     House of Representatives.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Madam Leader: Consumers Union, the 
     policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, urges the 
     House not to approve H.R. 2666, the ``No Rate Regulation of 
     Broadband Internet Access Act.'' We believe this legislation 
     is unnecessary, and we are concerned that it would undermine 
     the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rule 
     and other important responsibilities of the Commission in 
     protecting consumers and competition in the broadband 
     marketplace.
       We share the concerns voiced during the bill's 
     consideration in Committee, that ``rate'' and ``rate 
     regulation'' could be interpreted to interfere on a broad 
     scale with the Commission's authority to prevent all manner 
     of discriminatory treatment simply because there is some 
     direct or indirect price-related manifestation or effect. 
     Indeed, the Committee states in its report that the term 
     ``rates'' should ``be interpreted broadly, extending beyond a 
     simple price to any provider-offered fee, rate level, rate 
     structure, discount, incentive, or similar customer-facing 
     proposal.'' We are concerned that, other than outright denial 
     of service or interconnection, anticompetitive discrimination 
     would most likely take the form of some kind of price 
     differential--including data caps, throttling, 
     anticompetitive subsidies, and paid prioritization, just to 
     name some of the most obvious.
       Moreover, there is no indication that the Commission has 
     any intent to regulate rates for broadband service, now or in 
     the future, or that it has seriously entertained the 
     possibility of doing so. Indeed, the Open Internet Order 
     explicitly disclaims such intent. This bill is a flawed and 
     harmful solution to a non-existent and wholly theoretical 
     problem.
       The Open Internet Order is key to ensuring that the 
     benefits of the Internet are widely available--that everyone 
     has access to it on equal, nondiscriminatory terms. We hope 
     the House will allow the Commission to appropriately enforce 
     the Open Internet Order, without injecting new and 
     unnecessary uncertainty into the scope of its authority. We 
     urge that H.R. 2666 be defeated.
           Respectfully,

                                             George P. Slover,

                                            Senior Policy Counsel,
     Consumers Union.
                                  ____

                                         Computer & Communications


                                         Industry Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2016.
     Re CCIA Letter on H.R. 2666--No Rate Regulation of Broadband 
         Internet Access Act.

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Minority Leader Pelosi: As you know, an open Internet 
     has been a driving force of economic growth, innovation, and 
     a key to American competitiveness. It is a crucial input for 
     businesses large and small, and an essential component of the 
     lives of everyday Americans for expression, education, and 
     work.
       Unfortunately, H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of 
     Broadband Internet Access Act, threatens the FCC's ability to 
     enforce sensible rules to ensure the Internet remains 
     competitive and open. As you consider this legislation this 
     week, I hope you will take into account the negative 
     consequences this bill would have for consumers and 
     businesses that rely on Internet access.
       Despite the bill's title, H.R. 2666 goes far beyond rate 
     regulation. A closer look will not just reveal the potential 
     for higher costs to consumers and businesses, but also 
     significant regulatory uncertainty. Of considerable concern 
     are the bill's intentionally broad definitions. For example, 
     the bill's definitions of ``regulation'' and ``regulate'' 
     include the Commission's enforcement authority. This would 
     prevent the Commission from pursuing its longstanding 
     Congressional mandates of promoting competition and consumer 
     protection. Without such authority, the FCC would not be able 
     to review and prohibit anti-competitive actions that could 
     hurt consumers and businesses.
       During consideration by the Energy & Commerce Committee, 
     Democratic Members sought to find common ground with 
     amendments that would more clearly define what the bill seeks 
     to prevent--ratemaking for broadband. However, these efforts 
     were rejected on party-line votes. The bill's ambiguity 
     remains a significant concern for businesses and will impair 
     the FCC's obligation to ensure that basic rules of the road 
     will protect the openness that has made the Internet so 
     useful. I urge you to consider the effects on the open 
     Internet and vote against H.R. 2666.
           Sincerely,
     Ed Black,
       President & CEO, Computer & Communications Industry 
     Association.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn). She is the vice chairman of the full Energy 
and Commerce Committee and a very important member of our subcommittee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come to 
the floor today and stand in support of this bill. It is the right 
step.
  The gentlewoman from California references the amendment that she had 
wanted, but her amendment was not exactly what that bill is.
  What we are seeking to do is to encourage the FCC to make good on the 
promise that they have made. In March 2015, Chairman Wheeler was 
speaking

[[Page 4406]]

at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
  He was talking about net neutrality and rules and regulations. He 
said:

       This is not regulating the Internet. Regulating the 
     Internet is rate regulation, which we don't do.

  Whoops, they do. That is what they are trying to do.
  Now, there is a difference in what the gentlewoman was seeking to do 
in committee, not have tariffs or regulation. But if they had gone 
ahead and done it, then we would have to get into a process of trying 
to undo. That is what people don't like. They don't like that kind of 
mess.
  What they want is something very explicit. That is what Mr. 
Kinzinger's bill does. It very explicitly says: FCC, you cannot, you 
shall not, and you will not do rate regulation. It is not what the 
American people want to see. It is what the FCC has promised they will 
not do.
  So what we are doing is helping a federal agency keep their word, 
keep their promise, and not get into rate regulation. Of course, we all 
know that what they would like to do is regulate the Internet so they 
can tax the Internet, so they can then come in and set all the rates, 
and so they can then come in and assign priority and value to content.
  It is a commerce issue, it is a free speech issue, and it is an issue 
for the American people who want to make certain that the information 
service they have known, appreciated, and utilize every day in the 
virtual marketplace is not going to be regulated by a Federal 
Government agency.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would note that the FCC chairman is not a 
Member of Congress. It is only Congress that can write a statute. The 
amendment that I offered codified--codified--that there would be no 
rate regulation of the Internet.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from 
California, the ranking member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a deceptively simple bill, 
H.R. 2666. The bill states that the FCC may not regulate rates for 
broadband Internet access service, but I urge Members on both sides of 
the aisle to not fall for this rhetoric and misinformation.
  Just because this bill is short in length does not mean it is narrow 
in scope. It is designed to gut the FCC because, as experts have 
pointed out, the definitions in the bill for rate regulation could mean 
almost anything.
  While the Republicans claim that they intend the bill to be narrow, 
we have heard over and over that their draft would swallow vast 
sections of the Communications Act. Most notably, this bill could 
undermine the FCC's ability to protect consumers.
  Democrats repeatedly offered help to improve this bill. But make no 
mistake, there was not a negotiation. We offered suggestions, but were 
rebuffed time and again. In fact, we raised concerns from the beginning 
that the original bill failed to define rate regulation.
  Then, at the eleventh hour, the Republicans provided their own take-
it-or-leave-it definition with no Democratic input. This is not 
negotiating.
  The result of this one-sided conversation is the definition of rate 
regulation that simply confirms our worst fears. The definition is so 
broad that it effectively would gut the agency.
  Now, we have said repeatedly that we do not want the FCC to set 
rates. But we can't support a bill that undermines the FCC's core 
mission. We can't support a bill that prevents the agency from acting 
in the interest of the public.
  We can't support a bill that prevents the agency from protecting 
consumers from discriminatory practices, and we certainly cannot 
support a bill that undercuts the FCC's net neutrality rules. The 
Republicans rebuffed all of our efforts to narrow H.R. 2666 so that 
consumers are not harmed.
  If we are at all serious about passing a narrow bill, then 
accomplishing these goals would not be that hard. Our collective 
interests should be aligned. But that clearly is not the intent of my 
Republican colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to cast a vote against H.R. 2666.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side 
has remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 19 minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from California has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger). He is the author of this legislation and is a 
very serious member of the Subcommittee on Communications and 
Technology and a great patriot for this country.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee, and I 
thank the other side of the aisle. Even though this is something that 
we are going to put through and we would love to have a lot more 
support from the other side of the aisle, we do appreciate the working 
relationship.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this is, in my mind, very simple. 
When the FCC, in essence, chose to reclassify broadband Internet access 
service as a common carrier, that gave them the classification and the 
ability to regulate rates of private companies.
  Understanding this, it was the concern, as we looked around, that we 
want to make sure that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the 
rates charged for Internet access.
  If you look back in the history of this country and, really, what 
technology and what the Internet has been able to do for jobs, for 
economic growth, and for everything along that line, it has all been 
because it is free of government regulation. So let's just put this 
into law, that the FCC shouldn't have the authority.
  In a couple of hearings, Chairman Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC, 
was asked: Do you believe you should have the right or the ability to 
regulate the rates charged for Internet, for broadband access?
  He said: No. I forbear that.
  In fact, I asked the chairman: What if we put into law a simple 
statement that said that the FCC shouldn't have that authority?
  Amen, basically, is what he said.
  Now, over the next year, we have run into some more issues. All of a 
sudden 3 weeks ago I asked the chairman the same question again, and he 
admits that, actually, the FCC should have the ability to regulate 
broadband Internet access.
  This is Congress simply doing its job. Congress' job is to determine 
what authority the FCC should and should not have. That is what we were 
invented for. That is what we were created for, to determine those laws 
and those rules.
  All we are doing is taking back a little bit of power from the FCC 
and saying: Look, let's keep the Internet free market. Let's keep 
broadband free market.
  Congress is going to have its say in this. I hope the other side of 
the aisle and my colleagues join me in supporting this measure.
  It is the right thing for our country, and it is a great first step 
in preserving the Internet as free for future generations.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth). He is an outstanding member of 
the committee.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said on Wednesday during debate on the rule, the 
bill before us today is a vague solution in search of a nonexistent 
problem.
  While we all share concerns about the idea of broadband Internet rate 
regulation, Chairman Wheeler has made it absolutely clear that the FCC 
will not seek to regulate those rates.
  But since this bill is before the House anyway, I thought I would 
offer an amendment that would address an actual problem that can be 
fixed by the FCC.
  Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934 requires broadcasters 
to disclose the true identity of political advertising sponsors.

[[Page 4407]]

  The FCC currently relies on an outdated 1979 staff interpretation of 
the law that does not account for the dramatic changes that have taken 
place in our campaign system over the last 6 years, including the 
Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions. The rule makes sense. The 
American people ought to know who is actually trying to influence their 
votes.
  Unfortunately, sponsors in today's world don't indicate who is 
actually paying for the ad. No. We get sponsors like Americans for 
Kittens and Puppies. That is not very helpful in disclosing to the 
American people who is trying to influence them.
  It would be, for instance, if somebody ran an ad promoting sugared 
soft drinks and, instead of Coca-Cola or Pepsi being the actual people 
paying for the ad, you would have the advertising agency: This ad is 
sponsored by Ogilvy & Mather or McCann Erickson. That is not very 
helpful to the American people.
  So this has resulted in a major loophole in which special interests 
and wealthy donors can anonymously spend limitless amounts of money to 
influence the outcomes of our elections. That is not what Congress 
intended.
  Despite having the authority to do so, the FCC has refused to take 
action to close this loophole. My amendment, by restating the original 
constitutional intent, would have sent a message to the FCC that it is 
time to act.
  We all know how much secret money has flooded our politics, weakened 
accountability in government, and made it harder for voters to develop 
a true opinion of the individuals they will send to Congress to 
represent them.
  My amendment would have helped to change that and, hopefully, would 
have begun to restore a minimum level of honesty in our electoral 
system.
  The amendment was germane within the rules of this body, and the 
solution it provided was well within the authority of the FCC.
  Most importantly, an overwhelming majority of Americans--Republicans, 
Democrats, and Independents--want us to do this. They want us to reform 
and fix our broken campaign finance system.
  Unfortunately, Republicans on the Rules Committee voted against the 
interests of a majority of Americans and blocked my amendment from 
coming to the floor.
  While they killed my amendment, I am glad the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Mr. Lujan, will be up for consideration today.
  It will give us a chance to debate the lack of disclosure and 
transparency in campaign ads. Unlike the underlying bill, it offers a 
specific solution to a real problem.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lance), another terrific member of our Subcommittee on 
Communications and Technology.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Communications and 
Technology Subcommittee, I rise in strong support of Mr. Kinzinger's 
bill.
  The Internet has dramatically changed the global economy and how 
every one of us lives daily life. It is the great equalizer, providing 
an open platform to boost innovation and job creation, expand 
expression and free speech, as much as any invention in history.
  But some unelected officials here in Washington are eager to regulate 
it, and some in office across the country are eager to tax it. We must 
prevent both.
  The prosperity and opportunity we have come to know from the Internet 
will be compromised if Internet access becomes another victim of an 
overweening governmental agency.
  The apps on your mobile phone and for your online accounts, your 
social sphere and your personal and professional information come not 
from the permission of unelected officials, but from the work of 
innovators who have invented this 21st century technology.
  They must remain empowered to continue their innovation. We cannot 
allow the government a foothold for Internet control.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2666.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a wonderful and important member of the 
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member on the 
Communications and Technology Subcommittee and the chair of the 
Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
  There are two questions here. First is net neutrality. One of the 
biggest decisions that the FCC made was to protect net neutrality.
  Before they issued their order, they had literally millions of 
comments from people all across this country, in your district and in 
mine, urging that net neutrality be maintained and preserved. The 
chairman and the FCC did that with their order.
  Now, that has raised some questions as to whether the assertion of 
FCC authority is going to result in micromanaging through regulation, 
and that would be a legitimate concern if it were a concern.
  But the chairman has made it extremely clear that he has no intention 
whatsoever of doing any kind of rate regulation under title II. He is 
not going to do it. It hasn't been done.
  So this bill, which is going to ``prohibit rate regulation'' has some 
significant and potentially very dangerous consequences for two things, 
net neutrality and protection of consumers.
  We need an FCC that is going to be there to protect consumers against 
some potentially bad practices, like cramming or overbilling, things 
that traditionally the FCC has done as the agency that is protecting 
consumers against bad practices.

                              {time}  0945

  The reason why many experts believe that this bill would result in 
that happening is because there is no definition of rate regulation. 
There is none. The burden on legislators, when we propose something, is 
to be clear and specific as to what it is that is being proposed. There 
is no definition whatsoever in this bill about rate regulation. This 
bill is founded on an apprehension that something bad will happen, but 
it gives an undefined answer to prevent an undefined event from 
happening. So the effect here is that you have a bill that is playing 
on the fear of the unknown.
  My preference would be for us to not pass this bill, not endanger the 
authority of the FCC to take steps that help consumers in your district 
and in my district, and to focus where we should be focusing, in my 
view, on steps that we can take to improve broadband access in speeds, 
particularly for rural areas, rural Vermonters. There is a common goal 
that we have in our committee to try to get the broadband out and 
deployed at higher speeds in all of our areas, particularly the rural 
areas that are in jeopardy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to point out for the Record that on page 4 of the 
bill, H.R. 2666, on line 7, there is a definition of broadband Internet 
access service. We also have the definition of rate; we have the 
definition of regulation all spelled out in the bill. And very specific 
to the issue of cramming and illegal actions on truth-in-billing and 
all, those are also called for in the bill.
  He may be looking at an old draft of the bill or something, but it is 
not the legislation before us. We do define what rate regulation is. We 
do make sure that the FCC continues to enforce subpart Y, part 64, 
title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, relating to truth-in-
billing requirements. That is lines 18 through 20 of the bill. So those 
things actually were addressed in the legislation that is now before 
the House.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, it actually was great to follow my colleague 
from Vermont, who is a thoughtful individual, who always raises good 
questions, who really is open to debate, and he stumbles onto the truth 
in this.
  This does have an issue of net neutrality. Our problem has always 
been, we now have a Federal agency imposing what there was no need or 
desire,

[[Page 4408]]

by many of us, to fix. So now we are trying to make sure that this 
Federal agency doesn't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
  There is a fear. He was correct in also saying there was a fear.
  So how do you ease that fear?
  You enshrine into law the promises made by the administration and by 
the Chairman of the FCC. You take away the fear. It is not like, well, 
maybe this is what he said, but maybe he will do this. Just codify it. 
Then we know what the law is. Then everyone who brings it into 
litigation can say, well, here is the black and white law. Of course, 
we also have trouble with the courts. We would hope that the courts 
would read the black and white language of the law and then rule that 
way.
  All we are trying to do is trust, but verify. What we see is that the 
net neutrality debate was a fix seeking a problem, which there was no 
problem. No one can stand on our side today and say we have not 
advanced greatly by this new technological age and that we need more 
government to help cause it to flourish more.
  We are afraid of a Federal agency. We are afraid that the FCC has 
gone too far. We need to enshrine this into law. Everybody knows the 
ground rules. That is all my colleague, Mr. Kinzinger, is trying to do.
  I would ask my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, may I get an update on the time remaining on 
each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 13 minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from California has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who has an incredible 
background in rate regulation and the commission there and is a 
terrific member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chair, as the chairman said, I served nearly 10 years 
as a title II rate regulator on the North Dakota Public Service 
Commission, and I know what title II rate regulation looks like. The 
Internet is not an appropriate vehicle or medium for this type of 
regulation. The Internet is not a monopoly railroad, the Internet is 
not a monopoly telephone company, it is not a monopoly electric or gas 
utility. The Internet is a dynamic, competitive innovator. Even the 
threat of this type of regulation stifles that innovation, and we do 
not want that to happen.
  I want to address the amendment that was referred to by the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, who I have great respect for. She referred 
to the term ``permanent forbearance.'' That is a contradiction in 
terms. Forbearance is, by definition, temporary. He who has the 
authority to forebear has the authority to unforebear. That is exactly 
what her amendment did. That is why it was not adequate to this bill.
  This legislation simply codifies that which the President of the 
United States and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 
promised: to not regulate rates. If they promised to do it, God bless 
them. But we don't know that the next Chairman and the next President 
will live up to that promise. This law ensures that that promise is 
kept by codifying it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader of the 
United States House of Representatives.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, the biggest goal of the innovation initiative is to bring 
government into the modern age, making the policies that come out of 
Washington reflect and adapt to the world today.
  What has shaped our world more in the 21st century than the Internet?
  Education, commerce, communication, information. Everything in our 
lives has changed because of the Internet.
  How did the Internet become something so important, so useful, and so 
widespread?
  Government left it alone. It expanded to reach and help billions 
because bureaucrats weren't allowed to micromanage it.
  I remember hearing this from AOL founder Steve Case. It was back in 
1985. He said only 3 percent of people were online for an average of 
just 1 hour a week. Today, the Internet has reached about 40 percent of 
the world. That is an amazing growth.
  Unfortunately, the freedom that led to this amazing success is at 
risk. Right now, it is an open question whether the FCC can regulate 
Internet rates. Congress needs to clarify that it has no authority to 
do so.
  If the FCC were to regulate rates, it could harm every American 
across the country that has a Wi-Fi connection by imposing artificial 
restraints on their plans and service options, it would stop needed 
investment in expanding and improving the Internet, and it would block 
innovation that we depend on to create better and faster Internet. 
Regulating rates means its bureaucrats think that they can manage the 
Internet better than the private sector, which has already brought fast 
and affordable connections to millions across the country.
  I know the FCC and President Obama promised they wouldn't regulate 
broadband Internet rates from their offices in Washington, and that is 
a good thing. But that doesn't mean I am not concerned. I don't know 
about you, Mr. Chair, but after 7 years of broken promises, I have a 
hard time trusting this administration will follow through.
  So today we are voting to hold the administration to its word. They 
promised not to regulate rates. This legislation bars the FCC from 
regulating rates. It is as simple as that. I can't imagine why anyone 
would object.
  I want to thank Congressman Kinzinger for his work on this 
legislation, holding the FCC and the Obama administration accountable.
  The innovation initiative is all about giving the American people the 
freedom to grow and prosper. With this, the Internet stays a little 
freer, executive overreach is held back, and we leave space for the 
people to innovate without the Federal Government trying to control it 
all.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Long), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee 
on Communications and Technology.
  Mr. LONG. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, you don't need a Ph.D. from MIT to understand what is 
going on here. Despite President Obama and Federal Communications 
Commission Chairman Wheeler's past promises not to regulate the retail 
rates of Internet service providers, the Chairman announced last week 
that the FCC will start a new regulatory framework for the evolving 
business data market, and told other House Energy and Commerce 
Committee members and me last month that the FCC should have the 
authority to regulate broadband rates.
  Today, services provided over modern high-speed broadband facilities 
to customers are unregulated. It is a vibrant market where broadband 
companies compete vigorously for customers.
  If the administration gets in their way, the FCC will reverse course, 
price regulate business services, and create disincentives for further 
investment and deployment of high-speed fiber networks throughout the 
Nation. These burdens would harm investments, stifle innovation, and 
cost tens of thousands of jobs.
  Mr. Chair, our economy and American workers cannot afford this 
impact. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this crucial bill.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), another member of the Republican leadership, 
who is also a really important member of our committee and 
subcommittee.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank Chairman Walden, and I want to thank my 
colleague, Congressman Kinzinger, for his

[[Page 4409]]

leadership on bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, what we are trying to do here is to continue to allow the 
great innovation that we have seen from the technology industry. It has 
happened not because government has sat there and regulated every 
aspect of what they do. It is because government, frankly, hasn't 
figured out how to regulate them because the industry moves so fast. I 
think that has been a good thing.
  It has shown that if you allow an industry to go out there and invest 
private money in creating great new technologies, great new products, 
and you look at the development and deployment of broadband, it is 
literally changing people's lives for the good. It has allowed America 
to be such a great technological leader.
  But then when you see the threat of the FCC setting rates, regulating 
broadband, it will send a chilling effect that will not only kill that 
investment and slow down the ability and the growth that we have seen 
that has been so revolutionary in this country, but it will kill jobs 
in this country.
  We need to stop the threat of the FCC being able to set rates in a 
way that can slow down that growth. We have seen such tremendous growth 
in the technology industry by the government not being in this arena. 
What Congressman Kinzinger is doing with this bill protects taxpayers 
and protects the growth and innovation that we need in this country.
  I urge adoption of the bill.

                              {time}  1000

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), another great member of our committee.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2666, the No 
Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act, which will prohibit 
the FCC from regulating the rates charged for broadband Internet access 
service.
  This bill will help prevent further FCC overreach, save tens of 
thousands of jobs, keep rates affordable for consumers, and provide 
certainty for the future of broadband regulation.
  For the last year and a half, the FCC has insisted it would not 
regulate broadband Internet rates. That changed last month when 
Chairman Wheeler reversed course and contradicted all previous 
testimony on the FCC's intent to regulate rates.
  Many of our local businesses and organizations would suffer from 
further FCC overreach. Many already suffer from the uncertainty and 
vague new legal standards that have been imposed by the FCC. Regulating 
rates before and even after they are issued would further infuse the 
worst government meddling into a market that should remain nimble and 
competitive.
  I thank Congressman Kinzinger for his excellent and timely work on 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2666.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter), a gentleman who cares deeply about this issue.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2666.
  In 2015, the FCC reclassified Internet service providers as title II 
common carriers, giving themselves the ability to regulate Internet 
rates and user privacy. The administration has promised that this new 
agency power will not be used to regulate broadband rates; however, FCC 
Chairman Tom Wheeler has admitted that the FCC should have the 
authority to do so. This regulatory uncertainty is why this bill is 
needed.
  H.R. 2666 would prohibit the FCC from regulating rates charged for 
broadband Internet access and would hold the administration to the 
promise it made to American consumers. Preventing government 
interference with broadband retail rates would give smaller providers 
greater confidence when making investments, particularly those that 
would increase Internet access in rural and small communities.
  I urge my colleagues to help prevent the government micromanagement 
of Internet access by supporting H.R. 2666.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Clarke), an important member of the committee.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. I thank our ranking member, Ms. Eshoo, and 
the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of 
Broadband Internet Access Act, which would prohibit the FCC from 
regulating rates for broadband Internet access.
  I agree with the premise behind the bill. The Commission should not 
be setting rates for broadband access. In fact, we have heard from FCC 
Chairman Wheeler. He has stated several times that he does not intend 
to set rates.
  Like millions of Americans who made their voices heard last year, I 
support a free and open Internet. I do not believe the FCC needs to get 
into the business of regulating consumer broadband rates. H.R. 2666, 
however, is overbroad and far-reaching. The unintended consequences of 
the bill before us would undermine important consumer protections and 
would threaten a free and open Internet.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill before us 
today.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The gentleman from Oregon 
has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 15\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the chairman for his work on this important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation 
of Broadband Internet Access Act.
  The bill does just that--prohibits the Federal Communications 
Commission from unnecessarily regulating broadband rates. This 
legislation ensures that not only the current Commission but future 
Commissions will not have the option to regulate broadband Internet 
rates, which will protect the free market, encourage competition, and 
promote jobs; and that is what we need to be all about.
  Plain and simple, unelected Washington bureaucrats at the FCC have 
set out with another solution in search of a problem. By shifting the 
classification of broadband Internet to be a title II common carrier, 
the FCC is, simply, reclassifying broadband Internet to fall under 
their rulemaking purview.
  This is nothing more than another power grab by the administration to 
regulate and control yet another industry. It is estimated that, if 
rules regulating broadband services are carried out, it could cost over 
43,000 jobs, and I think we can all agree that it is not time to gamble 
with American jobs. When bureaucrats in Washington play the regulation 
game, no one wins.
  I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2666, and I encourage my colleagues to 
join me in support of this legislation.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
am prepared to close.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting discussion on the floor 
this morning. For people who are tuned in, I think that I want to stay 
away from Federal talk, telecommunications talk, governmentese.
  What this debate is all about is the Internet. There is a clear 
difference between how the Democrats view the Internet and how to 
protect its openness and its accessibility, and that rests in net 
neutrality--not a very sexy term. What it means is that no ISP can get 
in the way of the consumer. All you have to do is look in your purse or 
in your pocket. What you take out and the content that you view and 
whatever the Internet carries, no company can get in the way of that--
to chop it up, to slow it down, to speed it up, to charge more.
  Now, our Republican colleagues have fought mightily, and I salute 
them with their mightily launched campaign in that they don't believe 
in that, and

[[Page 4410]]

that is really what is underneath this. They talk about Federal 
bureaucracies. They don't like that. They talk about bureaucrats. They 
don't like them. They talk about the President. They don't like him.
  What is at the heart of all of this is that we believe in that open, 
accessible Internet. We do not believe that the executive branch--in 
this case, the FCC--should be able to regulate broadband rates. We have 
said so. We have said so time and again.
  The gentleman from North Dakota objected to my amendment. He said 
that it was an oxymoron. Our amendment codified. No one else codified. 
We offered codification in the law that not only this FCC Commission 
but all future Commissions--all future Chairmen--could not exact rate 
regulation. I don't know what needs to be done in order to get to 
``yes'' around here, and it is curious to me that all of the speakers 
on the other side never referenced what we put on the table--that there 
is agreement.
  Really, this bill goes beyond that, and that is what we object to. 
There is not one consumer organization in our country that supports 
what the majority is doing. We stand with consumers. They need a cop on 
the beat--we don't need the rate regulation of broadband by the FCC--
just the way other agencies are supposed to look after the best 
interests of the American people. In fact, in the Communications Act, 
the public interest is stated over 100 times. We believe in that. The 
majority has gone too far with this bill. It can hurt small businesses, 
and it will hurt consumers. That is where we draw the line.
  Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on H.R. 2666. It goes too far. We were willing to meet and join 
hands and have something sail through the House--and I think it would 
have in the other body as well--and that is that there be no rate 
regulation of broadband Internet. I don't know. Maybe the majority was 
shocked that we agreed with their talking point. We are serious about 
it. We offered a solution to it that was rejected not once but twice. 
Very disappointing. For all of these reasons and with what my 
colleagues stated on this side in the magnificent statements that they 
made, I urge the House to reject this legislation because it goes well 
beyond its stated intent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do appreciate the comments by my friend, and I consider her a good 
friend. We have worked together on a lot of issues successfully and 
have found common ground time and time again. Then there are days like 
today when we just see things differently and, perhaps, read them 
differently. That is what democracy is, after all, all about: competing 
ideas that come to an open marketplace where we can have an up-or-down 
vote by the people's Representatives.
  Let me talk about a couple of things, Mr. Chair.
  First of all, there is the issue of net neutrality, itself. As my 
friend from California knows, I put together a draft bill in January of 
2015--nearly a year and a half ago now. That bill read: no blocking, no 
paid prioritization, no throttling, and it required transparency, which 
are the core principles of an open Internet order. My colleagues on 
this side of the aisle are for all of those things. The door remains 
open for Democrats to join us in sponsoring that legislation. We looked 
forward to that, hopefully, in going forward, but we couldn't reach 
agreement on those very clear positions.
  My colleague said, Gee, they are for not having the Federal 
Communications Commission regulate rates for broadband Internet access 
service. I think that is an accurate description of what the 
gentlewoman said she was for. Let me go to page 3 of the bill and just, 
simply, read from line 6, section 2: ``Regulation of broadband rates 
prohibited.'' Line 7: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Federal Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged 
for broadband Internet access service.'' That is what this bill does.
  Now, here is where people may get a little confused because, on the 
one hand, we say no tariffing. That means no setting of the rates ahead 
of time. We agree that that is a bad idea. You have heard that from 
both sides of the aisle here. Yet, you see, the door that remains 
cracked open is the one they refuse to close; so the chilling winter 
air of regulatory overreach blows through that crack in the door 
because, if you don't close the ability of the agency to come in after 
the fact and say ``what you did on your rates we no longer think is 
correct,'' then you have after-the-fact rate regulation, which is even 
more uncertain than up-front tariffing, than an up-front setting of the 
rates. It is with this that we find ourselves in disagreement with my 
friends across the aisle. You see, they are willing to say no tariffing 
in advance, but they are not willing to close the door that allows the 
chilly air that will freeze out innovation--a post-action regulation--
from occurring.
  Having been in small business for 20-plus years earlier in my life 
and in the radio business, I know what regulation is. I know how to 
follow them. I know what a public file is. I actually kept them and did 
all of these things in our little radio station; but I cannot imagine 
if, after the fact, my regulator could come back and say: Do you know 
those ads you sold to the local car dealer? Even though they were 
printed on your rate card and they were publicly disclosed and all of 
that, we think, maybe, that was a little too high.

                              {time}  1015

  So you have to go back and you have to change things. There is no 
definition of how far back they could go. Could they go back 6 months? 
A year? 2 years? 10 years? I don't know.
  See, I guess you get to the point that the Internet thrives today in 
an environment where it was never regulated. That is what really made 
it go off the charts, is the innovators in Silicon Valley and I daresay 
in my district, in Oregon, and elsewhere, all over the world literally. 
There is no central-only point of innovation when it comes to the 
Internet and technology. It is global.
  The economy has flourished globally and has done all that without 
three Commissioners--or two Commissioners and one Chairman, three 
people in America deciding what you can and can't do.
  You have got to go: Mama, can I? Daddy, can I? Can I after the fact? 
Is it going to be okay? This is the new environment when you treat the 
Internet like an old, black, dial-up phone.
  Fundamentally, that is what Chairman Wheeler decided to do with 
pressure from the White House. They lost their independence as an 
agency when they went down this path to say that the Internet is now 
like an old phone line. Or, as you heard the former member of the 
Public Utility Commission from North Dakota, my friend, Mr. Cramer, who 
was in the rate regulation business, say, the Internet, it is not 
appropriate to regulate it as an old common carrier, an old railroad 
system that is a monopoly because the Internet is not a monopoly. We 
want innovation for consumers. We want the competition in the 
marketplace that we know drives down prices.
  When you have three people in America wanting to set the rates after 
the fact, which is what would happen in the FCC with a partisan 
Commission, as it is constructed today, they get to make the call, not 
consumers who say: you know, I kind of like that Binge On thing. That 
is new and innovative.
  And the Chairman will say: Well, yeah. We let that go. We think that 
is okay. That is the point. The Chairman got to say: We think that is 
okay.
  Prior to title II regulation, the chairman didn't have a say in that. 
The marketplace did. The consumers could go: I don't like that, so I am 
going to that carrier. Some other carrier can say: I don't like what 
they're doing, and I am going to offer you this.
  Now all that is going to get second-guessed by a government that is 
too big and is too much in our lives, and that is only going to get 
more regulatory in its scope and scheme.

[[Page 4411]]

  Finally, let me just restate the argument raised earlier that somehow 
consumers could be hurt by truth-in-billing fraud or paid 
prioritization. We specifically addressed those in the bill that came 
to the floor.
  We listened to our colleagues. We listened to those who testified. We 
made changes in the bill. We didn't do everything that everybody wanted 
because this is a compromise process.
  It is a good piece of legislation that protects consumers, encourages 
innovation, and does what our constituents want us to do: draw clear 
statutory lines that agencies have to follow, not devolve all authority 
to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of H.R. 2666.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
2666, the No Rate Regulation Act. Many small businesses and many of my 
neighbors in the Tampa Bay area have experienced loss of internet, TV 
and phone services. I want to ensure that my neighbors and businesses 
are protected--I am fighting for them to receive the services they paid 
for. The No Rate Regulation Act aims to dismantle the open internet and 
take the ``cop off the beat'' by hamstringing the FCC's ability to 
protect the consumer. Because of these concerns on behalf of my 
neighbors and small businesses, today I will vote against this bill.
  This is timely legislation for all the wrong reasons. On April 1 of 
this year, Frontier Communications assumed Verizon's TV, internet and 
land-line phone services in the Tampa Bay area. Since the transition, 
small businesses and individual consumers in Florida have experienced 
loss of internet, TV and phone services. Consumers are paying for 
services they are not receiving. Even now, customers are reporting 
waiting for Frontier's technicians that are ``no shows''. Frontier 
appears to be unable to provide the necessary services to my neighbors, 
at the present time.
  I am here today to ensure all customers are protected. I have been 
fighting to protect the consumer and for robust public interest 
reviews. On February 2nd I stated in my letter to the FCC regarding the 
proposed Bright House Networks/Time Warner Cable/Charter merger that it 
is appropriate for the FCC to investigate that ``best practices'' are 
present on behalf consumers.
  The awesome power of the internet should be used to build up our 
community and grow opportunity for our children. I am proud that last 
year Tampa was selected as one of only 27 communities nationwide to 
participate in ConnectHOME, which promotes locally tailored solutions 
to help bridge the gap in digital access for working-class households 
by addressing the barriers they have to high-speed broadband.
  We should be dedicated to significant community boosts in access to 
digital opportunities for our students. We should be working with all 
agencies to develop the types of skills needed to secure today's higher 
paying jobs for all our kids. Instead of inviting a promising tomorrow, 
Republicans have chosen to focus on a bad bill with no future today.
  On the House floor Republicans have offered the No Rate Regulation 
Act. If passed it could undermine key provisions in the FCC's Open 
Internet order and harm the Commission's ability to protect consumers. 
This bill simply fails to define a clear definition and experts assert 
that the bill could result in unintended consequences. The No Rate 
Regulation Act is overly broad and extends far beyond the goals of 
codifying the FCC's forbearance from applying provisions of the 
Communications Act related to tariffs, rate approval, or other forms of 
utility regulation. The FCC should not be stymied in their 
participation of mergers and acquisitions like the Bright House/TWC/
Charter proposal. For example, I have said that BHN's Connect2Compete 
Program should be maintained, but as written, this legislation could 
undermine the FCC's ability to encourage customer service agreements 
that protect the most vulnerable.
  We have seen the Comcast Universal merger approval include the supply 
of an affordable internet program called the Internet Essentials. These 
stipulations are important and should be maintained in other deals 
moving forward.
  Mr. Chair, today I will vote against this Republican bill that could 
undermine key provisions in the FCC's Open Internet Order and harm the 
FCC's ability to protect consumers. We should not be undermining the 
FCC. This legislation could exacerbate already negative consequences 
for my neighbors in the Tampa Bay area. I will continue work to protect 
consumers and neighbors in my community and vote no on the No Rate 
Regulation Act.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2666 the No 
Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act. Both Republicans and 
Democrats agree that the FCC should not have the authority to establish 
monthly rates for customers but I cannot vote in favor of this bill. 
Republicans crafted a poorly written and overly broad bill that 
threatens consumer protections. This is not the first time this 
Republican majority Congress has introduced legislation that is really 
a guise to strip administrative authority from agencies and to weaken 
consumer protection laws. I will continue to fight efforts to erode 
consumer rights and protections.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the 
bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2666

       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 ``No Rate Regulation of 
     Broadband Internet Access Act''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATION OF BROADBAND RATES PROHIBITED.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal 
     Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged 
     for broadband Internet access service.

     SEC. 3. EXCEPTIONS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the 
     authority of the Commission to--
       (1) condition receipt of universal service support under 
     section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) 
     by a provider of broadband Internet access service on the 
     regulation of the rates charged by such provider for the 
     supported service;
       (2) enforce subpart Y of part 64 of title 47, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (relating to truth-in-billing 
     requirements); or
       (3) enforce section 8.9 of title 47, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (relating to paid prioritization).

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       For purposes of this Act, broadband Internet access service 
     shall not be construed to include data roaming or 
     interconnection.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Broadband internet access service.--The term 
     ``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given 
     such term in the rules adopted in the Report and Order on 
     Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order that was adopted by the 
     Commission on February 26, 2015 (FCC 15-24).
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (3) Rate.--The term ``rate'' means the amount charged by a 
     provider of broadband Internet access service for the 
     delivery of broadband Internet traffic.
       (4) Regulation.--The term ``regulation'' or ``regulate'' 
     means, with respect to a rate, the use by the Commission of 
     rulemaking or enforcement authority to establish, declare, or 
     review the reasonableness of such rate.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House 
Report 114-490. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered 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.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Yarmuth

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 114-490.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 20, strike ``; or'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 3, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       Page 3, after line 22, insert the following:
       (4) promulgate regulations that require a television 
     broadcast station, AM or FM radio broadcast station, cable 
     operator, direct broadcast satellite service provider, or 
     satellite digital audio radio service provider, to the extent 
     such station, operator, or provider is required to make 
     material in its public inspection file available on, or 
     upload such material to, an Internet website, to make such 
     material available or upload such material in a format that 
     is machine-readable, such that the format supports the 
     automated searching for particular text within

[[Page 4412]]

     and among documents, the bulk downloading of data contained 
     in such material, the aggregation, manipulation, sorting, and 
     analysis of the data contained in such material, and such 
     other functionality as the Commission considers appropriate.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will 
make it easier for the American people to figure out who is trying to 
influence their vote through campaign ads.
  Right now, when someone is placing a political commercial on the air, 
the TV station is required to upload to the FCC public site information 
that identifies the name of the ad's sponsor, the duration of the ad, 
and the cost of the ad. But the FCC's site is cumbersome, slow, and 
impossible to search, which defeats the purpose of this requirement.
  This amendment clarifies that nothing in the underlying bill will 
prevent the FCC from requiring those entities that must submit a public 
inspection file to do so in a machine-readable format, which would 
guarantee that it is easily sortable, searchable, and downloadable.
  Adopting the Lujan amendment will send a message to the FCC that 
there is strong congressional support for making this information more 
accessible so that the American people have at least a chance to figure 
out who is trying to influence our elections.
  Furthermore, this amendment would fix a real-world problem, unlike 
the underlying bill, which is a vague solution in search of a 
nonexistent problem.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that nothing in the 
bill shall affect the FCC's authority to require that TV and radio 
stations and video and audio satellite providers make their public 
inspection files available online or in a machine-readable format.
  Mr. Chairman, I was in the radio business for 21 years. I would guess 
I am probably one of the few, if only, people who have actually had to 
maintain a public file.
  I don't know if the gentleman knows all the things that are in those 
public files. I would be happy to go through the very long list of 
them.
  I don't think the way the amendment is constructed is perhaps what he 
is seeking. I understand the part about public disclosure of time 
purchase, who is purchasing it, and all of that.
  But the public file includes all FCC authorizations, applications and 
related materials, contour maps, ownership reports and related 
materials, portions of Equal Employment Opportunity file, the public 
and broadcasting manual itself, children's television programming 
reports, DTV transition education reports, citizen agreements, then the 
political file, letters and emails from the public, material relating 
to FCC investigations and complaints, issues/program lists, donor lists 
for noncommercials educational channels, records concerning children's 
programming commercial limits, local public notice certifications and 
announcements, time brokerage agreements, must-carry or retransmission 
consents elections, joint sales agreements, and it goes on and on.
  Ours was a full drawer. We were just a little AM and FM radio 
station, and it was a full drawer in a filing cabinet.
  By the way, if you didn't have each file in the proper order, you 
could be fined. You had to have the political catechism in there. You 
had to have all these things.
  I understand what the gentleman is going for, and I am for 
disclosure. We had to do it. We did it. People came and looked at the 
file. It was all open and transparent, and now it does have to be 
online already.
  I just think this is an inappropriate place to go down this other 
path, when we are dealing with rate regulation of the Internet. I 
realize the gentleman cares passionately about the political disclosure 
issue, but I would just argue, Mr. Chair, that this is the wrong place.
  I think the amendment is clumsily worded in terms of the scope and 
magnitude that would occur in terms of making all this machine-
readable. Because I am thinking about a little AM radio station out 
there that is barely keeping the doors open, and we are going to tell 
them they have got to have their contour maps machine-readable? I don't 
even know how to do that. I know some programs like Adobe you can 
click, and some you can't. I don't know. It is a pretty big new 
requirement on these stations.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Clarke).
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
Lujan, Pallone, Yarmuth, and Clarke amendment.
  This commonsense amendment would ensure that the FCC can easily 
determine who is paying for political ads. More specifically, this 
amendment would guarantee that nothing in this bill would prevent the 
FCC from requiring that TV broadcast stations, AM and FM radio 
broadcast stations, cable operators, direct broadcast satellite service 
providers, or satellite digital audio radio service providers upload 
the public inspection file in the format that is machine-readable.
  Unfortunately, there is a large amount of unlimited money moving 
through our electoral system. This amendment gives all voters the peace 
of mind of knowing our elections are fair and transparent.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, in response to Chairman Walden--and I know that he shares my 
interest in creating effective disclosure of campaign contributions and 
ads--this amendment does not mandate any particular form of machine-
readable information. It only says that the Commission is not 
prohibited from requiring that certain parts of information are 
readable in machine format.
  I want to read a few quotes on disclosure:
  ``Disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the 
appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and 
expenditures to the light of publicity.''
  ``With modern technology, disclosure now offers a particularly 
effective means of arming the voting public with information.''
  ``Today, given the Internet, disclosure offers much more robust 
protections against corruption.''
  ``Because massive quantities of information can be accessed at the 
click of a mouse, disclosure is effective to a degree not possible at 
the time Buckley, or even McConnell, was decided.''
  All of the quotes are from the majority opinion in McCutcheon v. 
Federal Election Commission, written by Chief Justice Roberts.
  Now, I don't agree with the decision, but I sure do agree with his 
position that disclosure is critical to the integrity of our electoral 
system in the wake of this decision.
  I believe that adopting the commonsense Lujan amendment shows that 
Congress values transparency in government and will help restore a 
level of trust with the public.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise for my closing statement to oppose 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Again, I think it is overly broad. Beyond that, the gentleman from 
Kentucky kind of hit it on the head when he said that this doesn't 
require the FCC to do anything in terms of the machine-readable 
technology and all. Because, in theory, in reality, the way it is 
written, it basically says: nothing in this bill prevents them from 
doing something, by the way, which they can already do.
  The whole point, though, is this has nothing to do with the issue at 
hand in

[[Page 4413]]

the legislation. Our constituents really believe we should take one 
issue at a time.
  The issue here is about controlling a bureaucracy from doing 
something it has never had the power to do before: giving clarity in 
the marketplace, that they cannot regulate the rates of Internet 
service providers, which, in effect, has the ability of regulating 
innovation in new offerings for consumers.
  So I must oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, 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 Kentucky 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 114-490.
  Mr. McNERNEY. 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:

       Page 3, line 20, strike ``; or'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 3, line 22, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       Page 3, after line 22, insert the following:
       (4) act in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 
2666. This amendment would help to rein in some of the unintended 
consequences of the bill by preserving the FCC's authority to act in 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
  The public interest is a key principle that the Commission has used 
to protect consumers since Congress first created the agency in 1934, 
and it is just as important today.
  The FCC has consistently looked to the public interest standard when 
taking action to protect consumers, foster innovation, and increase 
competition.
  The standard has been a hallmark of many of the most important 
policies of the Commission. To give you a sense, the words ``public 
interest'' appear over 100 times in the Communications Act. That is 100 
times. That is how pervasive it is.
  Even with the amended version of the bill that was reported out of 
committee, serious concerns remain that the bill is going to have far-
reaching and unintended consequences.
  For example, it could be that the Commission would no longer be able 
to investigate data caps, pay for privacy practices.
  The Commission could also lose further protections for various types 
of unfair and discriminatory practices that affect how much they pay 
for broadband.
  My amendment would seek to limit some of those unintended 
consequences by ensuring that the Commission continues to have the 
authority that has historically served it so well.
  Moreover, by preserving the FCC's authority to act in the public 
interest, my amendment would safeguard the broad aims that the 
Communication Act embodies.

                              {time}  1030

  This amendment would continue to appropriately focus the FCC toward 
promoting the public good. I urge my Members to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, this one is a little more insidious than 
the last one because what it does is precisely what the gentleman says 
it does. It says, ``Nothing in this act can affect the FCC's authority 
to act in the public interest, convenience, or necessity.''
  And he is right. That term of art is all over communications law. Let 
me make that clear: all over communications--it is so broad, you can 
drive a rate-regulated truck back through it, a de facto after-the-fact 
regulation. And that is the point.
  When you give the bureaucracy wide-open language that says ``in the 
public interest,'' it sounds good on its face, but the practical impact 
for someone who wants to regulate, it is on their own authority, they 
go, well, we think that rate is in the public interest to bring down 
after the fact.
  See, then what we have done is empower others unelected to make 
decisions based on a term of art which, while it may be pervasive, is 
also wide open. That is what we are trying to avoid here, Mr. Chairman.
  See, the FCC could say, we are not going to rate regulate unless we 
want to rate regulate because we will determine on our own whether it 
is in the public interest to do so.
  All that sounds good, ``public interest'' sounds good, and it is good 
and it is an important part of our law, but in this case, remember 
where we start. Until Chairman Wheeler was directed, in effect, by the 
White House to treat the Internet like an old utility, none of this was 
regulated. That is the vibrant Internet we have today, and that is what 
Republicans are trying to preserve, an open Internet.
  We are all with you on blocking and throttling and pay prioritization 
and those issues. I have got draft legislation to legally say no to all 
of that. But when it comes to suffocating innovation in the marketplace 
and new offerings to consumers and really the vibrant competition that 
has been out here to this point, we have to draw a line with our 
friends.
  They say you don't want to tariff in advance, and we are with them on 
that, but the worst thing--the worst thing--when you are in business is 
the uncertainty of after-the-fact decisionmaking by your regulator--
after-the-fact decisionmaking by your regulator. Unfortunately, Mr. 
McNerney's proposal here, his amendment would allow that door to remain 
open, allow the agency to have this unfettered authority.
  Now, we have got provisions throughout the bill and in other law, 
both at State and Federal level, to protect consumers against fraud and 
to protect consumers on truth-in-billing. All those things are there. 
Those protections remain.
  Our sole purpose here and why we have been very narrow and specific 
and clear in our legislation is rate regulation is not something the 
FCC should take on. Consumers should have that power and authority, and 
people who want to innovate against the giant companies out there 
should be able to enter that marketplace with creative new packages 
that allow consumers to make choices and not have to go to Washington, 
D.C., and seek privilege and an audience with the chairman to find out 
if what they are proposing might be okay after the fact if they do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to Mr. McNerney's 
amendment. He is a good member of the committee. I like working with 
him, but in this case, the amendment is horribly flawed and would do 
grave damage to the marketplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate--or I sort of 
appreciate the chairman's comments, and I do appreciate the idea of 
broadness here; but if you look at what the actual bill says, ``may not 
regulate rates charged for broadband Internet services,'' that is the 
definition of broad. You can't get any broader than that. So we want to 
rein that in a little bit.
  We don't want unintended consequences out here, but let me say what 
my amendment says. ``Act in the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity.''
  Would the chairman like it if I took out ``convenience''? Should I 
just say

[[Page 4414]]

``act in the public interest and necessity''? Would that be good 
enough, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McNERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN. What I think would be really good is you withdraw your 
amendment and vote for the underlying bill that is really clear in its 
scope and faith and is a really good legislative product.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Well, again, I appreciate the chairman's and Mr. 
Kinzinger's work on this, and I appreciate working with the chairman on 
this, but I am going to have to insist that we look at this amendment 
and take it seriously. I do want to protect the public interest. That 
is really what this comes down to.
  Again, the term shows up 100 times in the act, so let's not turn our 
back on the intent of the act. Let's move forward in a way that 
protects the public interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would again urge opposition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time as well.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 California 
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 House Report 114-490 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. McNerney of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Yarmuth

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Yarmuth) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes 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 179, 
noes 231, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 150]

                               AYES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bass
     Black
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Delaney
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Engel
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Hanna
     Jones
     Lieu, Ted
     Marchant
     Nadler
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Simpson
     Stivers
     Thompson (CA)
     Tsongas
     Waters, Maxine

                              {time}  1056

  Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs. ALLEN, NUGENT, YOUNG of Indiana, GROTHMAN, and 
MESSER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FARENTHOLD, ISSA, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Ms. 
VELAZQUEZ, and Mr. POLIS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sessions was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


Announcement by Committee on Rules Regarding Amendment Process for H.R. 
               1206, H.R. 3724, H.R. 4885, and H.R. 4890

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, the Rules Committee issued 
four announcements outlining the amendment processes for:

[[Page 4415]]

  H.R. 1206, No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act;
  H.R. 3724, Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act;
  H.R. 4885, IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act; and
  H.R. 4890, a bill to impose a ban on the payment of bonuses to 
employees of the Internal Revenue Service until the Secretary of 
Treasury develops and implements a comprehensive customer service 
strategy.
  The amendment deadline for each bill has been set for 10 a.m. on 
Monday, April 18. For more details and the text of the bill, please 
contact me or visit the Rules Committee Web site.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes 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 173, 
noes 231, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               AYES--173

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Black
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Cardenas
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Delaney
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Engel
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Hanna
     Jones
     Kildee
     Lieu, Ted
     Marchant
     Nadler
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Schweikert
     Simpson
     Stivers
     Thompson (CA)
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walz
       

                              {time}  1102

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 151, I was meeting with a 
constituent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, 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. 2666) to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 
regulating the rates charged for broadband Internet access service, 
and, pursuant to House Resolution 672, he 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.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  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. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. YARMUTH. I am in its current form.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Yarmuth moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2666 to the 
     Committee on Energy Commerce with instructions to report the 
     same

[[Page 4416]]

     back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:

       Add at the end the following:
       Sec. __  Upon enactment of this Act it shall be in order to 
     consider in the House of Representatives the concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 125) establishing the congressional 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017 
     and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2018 through 2026. All points of order against 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the concurrent resolution and on any amendment thereto to 
     adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.

  Mr. WALDEN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading of the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.
  Ladies and gentlemen, today, April 15, is the deadline for Congress 
to enact a budget resolution; but here we are, set to leave town 
without taking any action.
  To their credit, Republicans did write a budget and it was approved 
by their members of the Budget Committee. So why, after months of 
promises of a return to regular order, would Speaker Ryan refuse to 
allow a floor vote on the Republican budget, the budget of his own 
party, the party he leads?
  Our obligation here in Congress is to control the purse strings of 
the country. So why would a former Budget Committee chair not want a 
vote on his party's budget, unless he didn't want people to know what 
is inside of it.
  I don't blame him. Our Democratic budget invests in education, 
infrastructure, medical research, job training, job creation, American 
priorities that improve our communities today and increase revenue in 
the future. It is why they are called investments. In contrast, the 
Republicans took the European austerity approach: eviscerating each of 
those investments and taking health coverage away from 20 million 
Americans, ending Medicare as we know it, and jeopardizing the 
retirement of millions of Americans. It also makes us less competitive, 
and encourages companies to ship jobs overseas.
  Nobody knows the backlash from this rebuke of American values better 
than Speaker Ryan, because the budget he wrote 4 years ago, when he was 
running for Vice President, had to be disavowed by his Presidential 
candidate running mate, Mitt Romney. It was so abhorrent to the 
American people that even his own running mate couldn't support it.
  So I get it, Mr. Speaker. I like your budget even less than you do. 
But you have it, and the people deserve to know what is in it and where 
their Representatives stand on it.
  You know, earlier this week, Speaker Ryan gave a speech explaining 
why he wasn't going to be a candidate for President, and he said one of 
the reasons was we have too much work to do here in Congress.
  Well, he sure is right. So why are we here, and why were we here 
yesterday and the day before working on bills that have no consequence 
to the American people when we should be doing the most important 
business we can, and that is to decide how much money we are going to 
spend and where for the American people.
  This motion to recommit is simple. It says, upon the bill's passage, 
we will bring the Republican budget to the floor.
  So don't hide behind procedural roadblocks to block debate. If you 
believe in your budget, make the case before the cameras and the 
American people. Let them see the contrast in our parties' values so 
they can decide for themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the motion 
because the instruction contains matter in the jurisdiction of a 
committee to which the bill was not referred, thus violating clause 7 
of rule XVI, which requires the amendment to be germane to the measure 
being amended.
  Committee jurisdiction is a central test of germaneness, and I am 
afraid I must insist on my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Oregon makes a point of order that the 
instructions proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky are not germane.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI--the germaneness rule--provides that no 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment.
  One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that an 
amendment may not introduce matter within the jurisdiction of a 
committee not represented in the pending measure.
  The bill, H.R. 2666, as amended, addresses rates for broadband 
Internet access service, which is a matter within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The instructions in the motion to recommit propose an amendment 
consisting of a special order of business of the House, which is a 
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.
  As the Chair ruled in similar proceedings yesterday, the instructions 
in the motion to recommit are not germane because they are not within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Accordingly, the motion to recommit is not germane. The point of 
order is sustained, and the motion is not in order.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 173, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 152]

                               AYES--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson

[[Page 4417]]


     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--173

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Black
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Delaney
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Engel
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Hanna
     Jones
     Lieu, Ted
     Marchant
     Nadler
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Simpson
     Thompson (CA)
       
       

                              {time}  1126

  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:
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 152 on H.R. 2666, I am not 
recorded because I was absent for personal reasons. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 150 for passage of the 
Yarmuth Amendment No. 2, rollcall No. 151 for passage of the McNerney 
Amendment No. 3, rollcall No. 152 for final passage of H.R. 2666 which 
took place Friday, April 15, 2016, I am not recorded because I was 
unavoidably detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 150, 
the Yarmuth Amendment No. 2, on rollcall No. 151, the McNerney 
Amendment No. 3. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 152 for 
final passage of H.R. 2666.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, on April 15, 2016, I was absent and was 
unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:
  Rollcall No. 150--``No.''
  Rollcall No. 151--``No.''
  Rollcall No. 152--``No.''

                          ____________________