April 9, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 61 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H3141-H3148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1644, SAVE THE INTERNET ACT OF 
   2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2021, INVESTING FOR THE 
               PEOPLE ACT OF 2019; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 294

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1644) to restore the open internet order of 
     the Federal Communications Commission. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     116-10. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2021) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and to establish a congressional budget 
     for fiscal year 2020. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 116-11. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  House Resolution 293 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     April 11, 2019, through April 26, 2019--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 4 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the period addressed by section 4 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The gentleman from New York 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 294, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 2021, the Investing for the People Act, under a structured rule. 
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. The rule 
makes in order three amendments, each debatable for 10 minutes.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1644, the Save the 
Internet Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce. The rule makes in order 12 amendments, each debatable for 
10 minutes.
  Additionally, the rule deems as passed House Resolution 293, which 
will immediately put in place an enforceable top-line discretionary 
spending level so that the Appropriations Committee can begin its work.
  Finally, the rule provides standard recess instructions through April 
26.
  Mr. Speaker, the Investing for the People Act is a 2-year budget bill 
that will raise the defense sequestration caps for defense and 
nondefense discretionary spending for fiscal year 2020 and 2021.
  I believe my colleagues from both sides of the aisle fully understand 
the devastating effects of sequestration. Across-the-board, mandatory 
cuts to every Federal program are not a successful path to fiscal 
responsibility.
  Without taking action to lift the caps established by the Budget 
Control Act, nondefense discretionary funding will be cut by $54 
billion. Such drastic cuts threaten public health, the environment, 
access to education, job training, and lifesaving social services like 
food and housing assistance.
  Cuts to nondefense discretionary funding would also impact our 
national security. Nearly one-third of investments in this area fund 
veterans' programs, homeland security initiatives, diplomatic 
operations, foreign aid, and Justice Department activities.
  If an agreement on lifting the cap is not reached, defense programs 
also stand to lose $71 billion. In a dangerous world, those cuts would 
be, in my view, harmful to national and global security.

[[Page H3142]]

  Only a few months ago, the American people felt the harsh effects of 
a government shutdown. It is time to come together to take decisive 
action to avoid another blow to essential Federal programs that help 
hardworking Americans in every State. This legislation ensures working 
families will be able to rely on continued Federal funding for the 
programs that keep them safe, support their jobs, and invest in their 
children.
  In fiscal year 2020, defense spending would be capped at $664 
billion, with nondefense discretionary spending capped at $631 billion.
  The Investing for the People Act would also provide up to $8 billion, 
annually, for nondefense overseas contingency operations, OCO, 
activities that do not count against the spending caps, while limiting 
OCO designation of defense spending in 2020 and 2021 to no more than 
the fiscal year 2019 level of $69 billion dollars.
  In his budget, President Trump proposed continued spending on defense 
measures but massive cuts to domestic programs like public health 
research, infrastructure investment, and support for low-income 
families.
  Even as our Nation draws down from our overseas war operations, 
domestic spending remains at a historic low as a percentage of our 
economy. H.R. 2021 provides a pathway for improving the lives of 
Americans in every community and renews our commitment to spending to 
meet the needs of our communities and invest in our economy.
  In addition to protecting Americans from spending cuts, the House 
will be considering protections for a product all of us here today rely 
upon to do our jobs and live our lives, just like millions of 
Americans: the internet. This rule also provides for consideration of 
essential protections for American consumers who use the internet.
  The Save the Internet Act would reinstate the Open Internet Order of 
2015 that classifies broadband internet services as common carriers 
that are prohibited from preferentially treating or discriminating 
against groups of persons.

  An overwhelming 86 percent of Americans opposed the FCC's rollback of 
net neutrality protections. All this legislation does, Mr. Speaker, is 
restore those protections.
  Fair and reliable internet access is absolutely essential to millions 
of working families and small business owners. Practices like blocking, 
throttling, and paid prioritization harm the ability of every American 
to experience the internet in the same way, regardless of provider or 
how much money you pay.
  The Save the Internet Act includes enhanced transparency protections 
and enacts specific rules against throttling, blocking, and other 
violations of net neutrality. The FCC would be empowered to investigate 
consumer and business complaints and impose necessary fines against 
internet service providers for violations of the Communications Act.
  The bill also provides pathways to internet access for every 
American, especially those in rural communities who are being left 
behind by modern, high-speed internet infrastructure.
  The Save the Internet Act would once again allow the FCC to fund 
rural broadband through the Connect America Fund.
  Additionally, this legislation revives the Lifeline program, created 
under the Reagan administration to subsidize phone service for low-
income families. Under this legislation, the FCC would again have 
authorization to use the Lifeline program to expand access to broadband 
for low-income Americans, especially seniors, students, veterans, and 
disabled Americans.
  In response to concerns raised by our Republican colleagues, the Save 
the Internet Act also ensures that the FCC has the power to protect 
access to the internet but does not have authority to make decisions 
over internet content or the power to impose taxes and fees for 
internet access.
  This legislation forbears the FCC from applying more than 700 
regulations under the Communications Act that are unnecessary to 
protecting an open internet, such as rate setting.

                              {time}  1230

  Internet service providers have long claimed that they were hamstrung 
by net neutrality protections and that strong consumer protections were 
preventing them from investing in higher speeds and advanced broadband 
infrastructure.
  In reality, ISPs actually increased speeds and invested huge amounts 
in improving their broadband during the time when net neutrality 
protections were enforced by the FCC. Moreover, many of the largest 
providers have failed to keep their promise of increased investing 
after the Trump FCC repealed those protections, with investments 
actually shrinking in recent years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and for both 
pieces of legislation underlying it, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend from New York for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes. And, at the risk of opening this debate like I opened so many 
others in 2019: Mr. Speaker, we have taken an opportunity to do 
something very productive and very bipartisan and we have turned it 
into something that is going to be very partisan and wholly 
unproductive.
  Neither of the bills we are considering in this rule today are going 
to be moving through the Senate. Neither of the bills we are 
considering today are going to be signed by the President. But the good 
foundation in both of those bills could have been, and we have missed 
yet another opportunity.
  Let me start with H.R. 1644, Mr. Speaker, the so-called Save the 
Internet Act. I can't speak for everyone else's internet, but my 
internet is still thriving. I haven't seen any nefarious internet 
shortages or blockages in recent days.
  For the millions and millions of Americans trying to livestream C-
SPAN right now, they are having no problems whatsoever. It is going 
right through the pipes the way it always has, Mr. Speaker. And, if it 
is in need of saving, it is certainly not in need of saving from this 
institution.
  I understand, Mr. Speaker, that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are upset with the Trump administration's FCC.
  You will recall that the Obama administration and its FCC took the 
regulations that had governed the internet from its inception through 
its explosion of productivity and innovation, all the way through 2015, 
and threw all those rules out entirely, replacing it with a command-
and-control government structure.
  In its wisdom and with my great support, the Trump administration and 
the FCC threw those new rules out, taking us back to those rules that 
provided the foundation for the internet and all of the productivity 
that it has provided.
  It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that so many folks are afraid of 
internet freedom that we need to try to find a way to clamp down on 
internet freedom and bend the internet to the will of the government.
  I would argue that the Wild West innovation style that has driven the 
internet and tech companies from day one shouldn't be boxed in by the 
government and certainly shouldn't be replaced with a 1930s-era, Ma 
Bell telephone regulatory scheme.
  That is what we are talking about here today with this bill, Mr. 
Speaker, is turning over regulation of the internet to title II of the 
Communications Act.
  If you have not looked at title II recently, Mr. Speaker, it is 
almost 100 years old. It was created to govern that wonderful emerging 
technology called the landline telephone and the monopolistic telephone 
companies that existed at that time.
  I don't know how many of your staffers still have landline 
telephones, Mr. Speaker. I know your grandchildren probably don't even 
know how to operate one these days.
  We certainly should not be relying on those regulations to bring us 
forward with innovation. The heavy hand of government regulation always 
takes us backwards.
  The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that, if you see legitimate challenges 
out there, we do have some bipartisan solutions to help address those: 
Former Chairman Walden's H.R. 1101, one such bill that could have been 
on the floor today; Mr. Latta's H.R. 1006, another bill that could have 
been on the floor today; Mrs. McMorris Rodgers' H.R. 1096 could have 
been on the floor today, just to name a few.

[[Page H3143]]

  But none of those bipartisan options were seriously considered. 
Instead, we are left with a single option, in true government, 
monopolistic fashion, and that option is to support the Obama 
administration's failed government takeover of the internet.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose that. I oppose the legislation. I hope my other 
colleagues will as well.
  It did not have to be this way. This could have been a productive 
partnership discussion about how to take what is obviously a productive 
and innovative tool fueling, not just urban America, not just suburban 
America, but rural America, and we could have talked about how to grow 
it together. But we chose a different path, digging partisan ditches 
even deeper early in 2019.
  If that is not disappointing enough, Mr. Speaker, there is a second 
bill that this rule makes in order. That is H.R. 2021. That bill comes 
out of another committee that Mr. Morelle and I serve on, the House 
Budget Committee.
  I love serving on the House Budget Committee, I have to tell you, Mr. 
Speaker. It is a wonderful committee on which to serve. Mr. Morelle and 
I are both lucky to be on it, and we have two fabulous leaders on that 
committee: Mr. Yarmuth of Kentucky leading the Democratic side of the 
aisle and Mr. Womack of Arkansas leading the Republican side of the 
aisle.
  If you were going to task two leaders in this institution with 
crafting the kind of budget that I talked about from the well earlier, 
Mr. Speaker, a budget that would protect Social Security, protect 
Medicare, protect Medicaid, a budget that would lay out priorities for 
America, talk about where it is that we want to see our children and 
our grandchildren go in the 21st century, those are the two leaders who 
could have brought us together for the first time in a long time around 
a unified vision.

  But, instead, the order came down from on high, Mr. Speaker. There 
was to be no budget. I assume that is true. We have considered 
absolutely no budget in the so-called Budget Committee. We have had no 
budget markup in the Budget Committee. We have had no discussions of 
budget in the Budget Committee.
  Instead, what we have before us today is a bill that is sometimes 
referred to as a caps deal. You have heard ``caps deal'' before, Mr. 
Speaker.
  It is those times in years past where we have taken what are those 
discretionary caps, those limits on how much Federal money we can 
spend, and we have adjusted those so that we can invest in some shared 
priorities on the one hand while reducing spending in some other, lower 
priority places.
  We have done that in a bipartisan way not once, not twice, but three 
times. We could have been here today, Mr. Speaker, for a fourth time.
  If we are not going to actually do a budget, we still could have been 
here on a caps deal. But this is not a caps deal. This is not a caps 
bill that had input from Republicans in the House. This is not a caps 
deal that had consultation with the Senate. This is not a caps deal 
that has been done in bipartisanship with the White House.
  This is a caps deal that is just a deal among warring factions of a 
divided Democratic Caucus, and that bill has come to the floor today--
again, a bill that will not be considered in the Senate and a bill that 
will not be signed by the President.
  We can normalize partisan failure in this institution, Mr. Speaker. 
We can. We can also normalize bipartisan cooperation.
  I don't fault the other side for the struggles that are, inevitably, 
going to happen when a new majority takes over in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Leading is a very difficult, difficult thing to do.
  But, at the end of the day, the majority is tasked with doing exactly 
that--leading. The Budget Committee should produce a budget. The United 
States of America should have a budget.
  It is not easy to do. It is not easy to pass this House floor. It is 
not easy to pass through a committee. But it is what the law requires 
us to do; it is what we have the right leaders on the Budget Committee 
to do; and it is what every single Member in this institution knows in 
their heart that we should do.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this rule, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just make a few brief comments, and I always 
appreciate the passion that Mr. Woodall, my distinguished friend and 
colleague, brings to this discussion.
  I do want to say what this is. First of all, the rule before the 
House has both a resolution, which I talked about, which is really the 
safety net, it establishes the $1.295 trillion for discretionary 
spending and, in addition, allows us to do IRS enforcement--$400 
million is in the resolution--and the census 2020, which is upcoming 
and which will take thousands and thousands of people to conduct the 
census in the way that the Framers identified it to be.
  It also has a budget bill. And I do want to just mention just a few 
points that relate to what Mr. Woodall said.
  The major components of the budget are in the budget bill. It 
provides a top line for discretionary spending, provides allocations to 
the authorizing committees, provides a revenue floor, enforces all 
these 302 allocations, and sets new caps for discretionary spending, 
gives allocations to authorizing committees, all of these things which 
will match the CBO's baseline, I might add, and enforcement through 
regular Budget Act points of order.
  So this does have a budget bill. What we do with the resolution, 
however, is critically important because it makes sure that we begin 
this process.
  I think the thing that we all want to avoid in the greatest possible 
way is a shutdown. We saw that happen, and 2018 made history.
  Although the House, the Senate, and the White House were all 
controlled by the same party, we ended Congress for the first time in 
U.S. history in a government shutdown, an inglorious end to the 115th 
Congress.
  We need to do anything we can. This starts that process, creates a 
safety net, and jump-starts the budget process. So this is a completely 
appropriate and, in my view, mandatory way to start this process. And I 
will perhaps, if I get a moment or two, talk about the budget that the 
President submitted to us.
  I also want to just mention for a moment, if I can, the comments 
raised by my colleague relative to the net neutrality bill. This, under 
the current rule, has enormous exposure to consumers and businesses. It 
does not impede innovation, what we are attempting to do. In fact, in 
my view, it will spur innovation, and it provides predictably for all 
users, consumers and businesses alike.
  I do note that the rule that we reported out last night ensures that 
we do everything we can to reaffirm that commitment to fair access.
  The rule made in order 12 amendments, both from Democrats and 
Republicans. It is a structured rule. Some of those amendments I agree 
with, some of those I disagree with, but every single one is worthy of 
debate on the floor. I am very proud, and I want to also congratulate 
the chair of our committee, Mr. McGovern, for making sure that we have 
amendments from both sides to discuss on this floor.
  I do want to just mention a couple of them. Several amendments aim to 
strengthen access to broadband internet in rural and underserved 
communities. Mr. Brindisi, for instance, has an amendment which we will 
take up which requires the GAO to produce a report about the ways the 
U.S. government can promote the deployment of broadband to rural 
communities.

  Representative Wexton has an amendment requiring the FCC to submit to 
Congress a plan on how the Commission would address problems in 
collecting data on deployment of broadband. By fixing these problems, 
we can have a better understanding of those communities that are served 
by broadband and ensure every community has access.
  We have an amendment by Representative Waters asking the Comptroller 
General to submit a report on how net neutrality helps ethnic and 
racial minorities and how those rules will help disadvantaged groups, 
rural populations, individuals with disabilities, and the elderly. 
Without that full information, we cannot ensure that everyone is 
receiving the same treatment.
  We have an amendment from Representative Davids directing GAO to

[[Page H3144]]

submit a report examining the FCC's efforts to assess competition. 
Colleagues are worried about how net neutrality rules will impact 
competition, but they have no data to back up their claims, so let's 
collect the data we need. Good policy is always backed by good 
evidence.
  We also made in order an amendment by Representative McAdams which 
would affirm that ISPs can still block unlawful content, such as child 
pornography. Some content has no place on the internet, nor anywhere in 
our homes, and we want to make sure that ISPs block this, as they 
should, and that nothing in the bill will prevent them from doing so.
  There are several other amendments made by Democrats that will be on 
the floor. I won't go into them any further. But I do want to 
acknowledge, also, that we have amendments in order submitted by 
Republican colleagues as well.
  Mr. Latta submitted an amendment requiring the FCC to share the list 
of 700 rules that will be permanently forborne once this bill becomes 
law, which makes sense to me. We had this conversation in rules 
yesterday, to ask the question what those 700 rules are. The FCC has 
determined them to be unnecessary and burdensome.
  Let's look at them and see what they are. Let's see the list. Let's 
show the American people that the government was not regulating for the 
sake of regulating and that, when those regulations are no longer 
appropriate, we will remove them.
  Finally, my colleagues on the Rules Committee made Representative 
Burgess' amendment in order. It directs the GAO to initiate a study to 
examine the virtuous cycle of the internet ecosystem and the effect of 
net neutrality on that ecosystem--again, an amendment which was made in 
order to make sure that we have bipartisan discussion here on the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend from 
New York, but I just have too many speakers who have come down to the 
House floor today to speak about this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole), a member of the Rules Committee, our ranking member on the Rules 
Committee, a member of the Appropriations Committee, and one of the 
most thoughtful Members of the Republican Conference.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, a member of 
the Budget Committee, for yielding, and my colleague on the Rules 
Committee.
  I rise to oppose the rule and oppose the underlying legislation. Now, 
I oppose the rule because it is not really a rule at all. It is really 
legislation masking as a rule.
  Buried in this rule is a measure that will, what we call self-
execute, but deem what the budget is going to be. In other words, our 
friends are telling us: We may not have the votes, even though we have 
a substantial majority, to pass our own caps bill. But just in case, 
the rule vote, which is a partisan vote, we are going to put it in 
here.
  Now, that doesn't speak to a high degree of confidence that my 
friends will have the votes, which they should have, on their caps 
deal. I would argue it is technically legal, but it is not a very 
seemly practice to actually express your distrust of your own majority 
that directly.
  Second, let's talk a little bit about the underlying legislation. 
There is a lot here I don't agree with, but I want to focus on one 
thing in particular, Mr. Speaker, and that is the ``budget'' itself, 
because it is not a budget. It is a caps bill.
  It is not even a caps deal. It hasn't been negotiated with the 
Senate. It hasn't been negotiated with the administration. It is an 
arbitrary number. It has no chance of becoming law. There is no way a 
Republican Senate will have double the amount of increase for domestic 
programs as it has for defense. It is just not going to happen.
  So, now, the Appropriations Committee--and I am always happy to have 
numbers as an appropriator--will now move on down with a set of numbers 
that we know will not survive negotiations with the Senate or with the 
President. So we are going to mark up a lot of bills, but they are 
going to be the numbers that are a fantasy.
  Finally, in this caps deal, we ought to point out, our own rules 
require the majority to present a budget. We couldn't even get a budget 
out of the Democratic Budget Committee. Now, that is a failure to 
govern.
  The Speaker, herself, said on one occasion: Show me your budget, and 
I will show you your values.
  It suggests that you don't want to show the American people your 
values, because you certainly aren't showing us a budget in this 
legislation.
  So the rule, frankly, is a backdoor way to enact some sort of caps 
legislation, caps legislation that will not be accepted by the Senate, 
that will not be accepted by the President of the United States.
  The underlying legislation doesn't have a budget, which our own rules 
require that it have. It has a mere statement of spending levels that, 
again, are not going to be accepted by the other Chamber or by the 
President of the United States.
  And, finally, our friends have abdicated their most important 
responsibility, which is showing the American people their view and 
their vision of what the budget ought to shape.
  The rule ought to be rejected; the underlying legislation ought to be 
rejected; and our friends ought to challenge themselves to bring us a 
budget that they can support, that they can put in front of the 
American people.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma's comments.
  Those on the other side may say this is messy, but do you know what 
is messier? Another government shutdown.
  We just endured, earlier this year, a 35-day government shutdown, the 
longest shutdown in our history. In this committee, we are committed to 
doing everything in our power to prevent that from happening again.
  We want to make sure we can move forward with appropriations 
legislation, and this provision is a safety net to assure that process 
can begin. Whenever a budget bill comes up, whenever we begin that 
appropriations process, we will have a path forward.
  My good friend raised the question of the President. I have to admit 
I am new here, haven't been here very long. I have been involved in the 
budget process in the State of New York for many years.
  Frankly, watching the budget and looking at the budget submitted by 
the President, I would be embarrassed. I think it is no wonder that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle didn't submit, as an amendment, 
the President's budget.
  The President's budget is devastating. I look to how it would 
devastate the people in my home State of New York: repeals the 
Affordable Care Act, eliminates health insurance for 2.2 million New 
Yorkers, abolishes protections for people with preexisting conditions, 
substantially increases premiums for older Americans.
  If the budget that Donald Trump submitted became law, a 60-year-old 
living in New York making $25,000 a year could see their healthcare 
premiums increase by up to $5,000 annually, from $1,600 to $6,300 in 
2020, a quarter of their income.
  It cuts funding for New York's Medicaid program by $159 billion over 
the next 10 years. Nationally, the Trump budget proposes to cut 
Medicaid by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, 36 percent in 2029 
alone.
  College would be more expensive for 179,000 New Yorkers by completely 
eliminating the Direct Subsidized Loan Program and taking away grants 
for 108,000 students by abolishing the Supplemental Education 
Opportunity Grant program. At a time when people need to have knowledge 
more than at any other time in human history to safeguard their 
economic future and those of their families, to cut college programs is 
reprehensible.
  But I don't care just about New Yorkers, Mr. Speaker. My friend from 
Georgia, I have a brother who lives in Georgia. His children live in 
Georgia. I care a great deal about the people in Georgia as well.
  The Trump budget:
  Eliminates after-school programs for 41,000 Georgia students by 
zeroing out the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program;

  Takes away high-quality childcare and early education for 4,200 low-
income Georgia children by cutting Head

[[Page H3145]]

Start by 17 percent in the final year of this budget;
  Eliminates nutrition assistance for up to 395,000 Georgians, 90 
percent of whom live in households with at least one child, elderly 
person, or a person with a disability, by cutting the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program by $220 billion, nationally, over 10 
years;
  Takes the food out of the mouths of 4,000 pregnant women, new moms, 
babies, and toddlers in Georgia by cutting the Women, Infants and 
Children program by 13 percent in the final year of this budget.
  I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I will spare my colleagues a 
long dissertation on the Trump budget, other than recognize that this 
House is moving forward. We are beginning this process. We have 
established a safety net.
  This is what Americans want. They don't want another shutdown. And we 
are going to do everything in our power--together, I hope, in a 
bipartisan way--to make sure that we continue to move forward in the 
years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that 
my friend's criticisms of the Trump budget are perfectly legitimate. 
What he failed to mention, though, is the reason he can make those 
criticisms is because the law required the administration to offer a 
budget, and it did. The law also requires this House to offer a budget, 
and we have not.
  We are better than that. This is not an Article II responsibility. 
This is an Article I responsibility, and we will rue the day that we 
decided that we would rather talk about what Article II was doing 
instead of doing the work ourselves here at Article I.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Meuser), a new Member of this institution and a member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and 
to H.R. 1644, also known as the government-controlled internet act.
  Once again, House Democrats are putting Federal Government control 
over freedom and bringing to the floor yet another partisan, central 
command government bill.
  H.R. 1644, or the government-controlled internet act, which, 
fortunately, has no chance of being signed into law, goes against 
everything that made the internet what it is today.
  There is a reason the United States is home to the top internet 
companies in the world. This doesn't happen by accident. It is because 
of the laissez faire approach that allows for an environment of 
economic growth, competition, and innovation.
  Instead of building on the pro-innovation approach that has 
revolutionized how we communicate, work, and stay connected, this 
legislation would impose heavy-handed, top-down regulations that would 
box the internet into outdated rules written in the 1930s.
  Why is the Democratic majority supporting a bill that will take the 
internet backwards?
  This bill is the quintessential solution in search of a problem. If 
we want to protect constituents, promote investment, and encourage 
innovation, H.R. 1644 is not the solution.
  If my colleagues across the aisle are serious about protecting 
consumers and ensuring access to a free and open internet, then we need 
to find bipartisan consensus on net neutrality principles that address 
blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. We need a modern 
framework that allows for continued American innovation and investment, 
not another Federal Government regulatory takeover.
  H.R. 1644 is not a serious solution to protecting our constituents 
and advancing American ingenuity. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
effort and send a clear message that we need to move the internet 
forward, not backward. I hope they will oppose this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As you know, the difficulty is, when we take away the managing of a 
business operation from that underlying business, the incentive to 
innovate and to serve consumers is likely to dissipate.
  The internet, for decades, has thrived because it was not under the 
heavy hand of government. Because of this freedom, we are now on the 
brink of accessing the fifth generation of broadband technology that, 
when fully implemented, will eliminate the need for net neutrality 
regulations because latency for all content will be almost zero.
  I don't think you find any disagreement that blocking, throttling, 
and paid prioritization are not practices that anyone wants as a part 
of the open internet. But classifying broadband internet as a 
telecommunications service under title II of the Telecommunication Act 
of 1934 will limit the ability of service providers to respond to 
consumer demands and potentially result in disruptions due to content 
neutrality requirements.
  Republicans have introduced three proposals to preserve a free and 
open internet. I hope we can work together, going forward, to achieve 
that laudable goal.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do note for my friend, Mr. Burgess, whom I serve on the Rules 
Committee with, that we, in an effort to enhance bipartisanship, made 
his amendment in order. I believe it is the first amendment in order, 
and I certainly expect that it will get broad consideration on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 120 
businesses and startups urging Congress to support net neutrality. This 
letter says: ``Passing H.R. 1644 will provide certainty for businesses 
and startups and would ensure critical consumer protections for all 
internet users.''

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Republican Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: We are writing in 
     support of H.R. 1644, the Save the Internet Act, to fully 
     restore the strong net neutrality protections for Internet 
     users that were adopted through the FCC's 2015 Open Internet 
     Order but later repealed.
       Net neutrality is fundamental to guaranteeing that every 
     American has unencumbered access to the Internet. This access 
     is also essential to a competitive, free market for the 
     technology economy to thrive as well as entrepreneurship in 
     this country. The benefits of these protections are not 
     confined to technology companies and startups. Main Street 
     businesses across numerous sectors increasingly rely on 
     unfettered Internet access to run their operations and to 
     reach customers.
       Net neutrality has been critical to the Internet's 
     explosive growth, creating an open platform on which 
     companies large and small can grow. We urge members of 
     Congress to stand on the side of consumers and Internet users 
     to quickly pass a clean, unamended version of H.R. 1644. This 
     bill would restore strong rules prohibiting blocking, 
     throttling, and paid-prioritization while reinstating ex-ante 
     enforcement and oversight by the FCC to prevent net 
     neutrality-related harms from happening in the first place.
       Passing H.R. 1644 will provide certainty for businesses and 
     startups and would ensure critical consumer protections for 
     all Internet users.
           Sincerely,
       1Huddle, Ad Hoc Labs (dba Burner), Adaptive Energy, 
     AlleyWatch, Applemon, Attentive, Inc, BetaDefense, Binary 
     Formations, LLC, Bitly, Bloomers Island, Blue Ocean 
     Technology, Bluebell Advisors, Inc/Gilbane Advisor, BusBot 
     Incorporated, CapSen Robotics, Chartbeat, CitiQuants 
     Corporation, Cogent Communications, Cole House LLC, Concourse 
     Markets, Contextly.
       Creative Action Network (CAN), CredSimple, D3FY.COM, 
     Darling, Inc., DART Technologies, Digital4Startups Inc., DLT 
     Education, EarnedCard, Educreations, Elucd, Etsy, Inc, Expa, 
     Fan Guru, Filament, FinToolbox (Screener.co), FluentStream, 
     Founder Academy, Foursquare, Friends, G. A. Hensley Company 
     Inc.
       General Assembly Space, Inc., GitHub, Inc., Globig Inc., 
     goTenna, Grey Horse Communications, Gust, Gusto, Haute Huab, 
     High Fidelity hobbyDB, HOGARU, Hoola Hoop LLC, InnovateEDU, 
     Inwage LLC, JOOR, JustFix.nyc, Karavan App, Karma+, Laconia 
     Capital Group, Launch Pad.
       Loxo, LR, Makeo Company LLC, Mapbox, Market Mic LLC, 
     Martech, Mavatar Technology Inc., Medium, Meta, LLC, 
     MetaProp.vc, Minibar Delivery, Mozilla Corporation, Music to, 
     Neighborland, Neta Collab, Netsyms Technologies, Onfido, 
     Onfleet, Inc., Outdoor Project, Patreon, Inc.

[[Page H3146]]

       Postmates, Promogogo, Rainmakers, Reddit, Inc., Rentify, 
     Rex Ag Labs, Routific, Sandwich.Net, LLC, Shotwell Labs, 
     Inc., Shutterstock, Inc, Simply Made Apps, SlidesUp, Snaps 
     Media Inc., Spoonful, SpotHero, Starsky Robotics, Stealth 
     Communications, Stripe, Stylaquin, Svaha LLC, Tampa Bay Wave.
       Tenpin, textile.io, Tinybeans USA Ltd, Tostie Productions, 
     LLC, Troops.ai, TrueAbility, Tunesync, Twitter, Uncork 
     Capital, Venrock, Via, Vimeo, Inc., WayUp, Wellthy, White 
     Lioness Coaching, Women 2.0, WorkHound, Yapp, You 
     Got Listings, Inc, Zyper.

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from New York is right: They did make a number of 
amendments in order, but not enough amendments to solve some underlying 
problems.
  One amendment they didn't make in order was an amendment to provide 
disaster funding to so many of our communities that have been waiting 
on disaster funding--not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, 
but, now, into the new year.
  If we defeat the previous question today, we can correct that 
injustice, and I will bring up an amendment to the rule to make this 
disaster funding possible. It is critically important.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Austin Scott) to talk about that, one of the greatest advocates for 
that language here in the House.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so the House can immediately 
bring up meaningful disaster relief.
  I want to thank my friends and colleagues from across the aisle, 
Representative Woodall, obviously, Chairman McGovern, Ranking Member 
Cole, and others on the Rules Committee, for allowing me to speak last 
night on behalf of the amendment. I also want to thank them for their 
help in previously passing very similar legislation.
  My amendment is quite simple. The text contained the same dollar-for-
dollar amounts from H.R. 268, the House-passed disaster assistance 
bill.
  This bill was a work of compromise and work that many of us 
representing districts that have been hit by disasters in 2018 worked 
on. It includes a bipartisan amendment that I and many others 
sponsored, which raised the crop and livestock loss assistance to $3 
billion, from approximately $1 billion. That is included in the final 
text.
  Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order; but, if we defeat 
the previous question, it will be included in an amendment, along with 
other important provisions, to help those affected by the natural 
disasters of 2018.
  Disaster relief has never been a partisan issue in the United States 
of America, and it should not be a partisan issue today. I urge my 
colleagues and I ask every Member in this body to defeat the previous 
question so that we can immediately bring up legislation to deliver on 
our promise of passing disaster assistance prior to leaving for the 
Easter break.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of the gentleman. We 
certainly agree.
  The House has passed disaster relief. We await Senate conferees, so 
we can move that process forward. But what strikes me is how troubling 
it is to have this conversation.
  The reality is that the President of the United States has chosen 
which Americans to provide aid to. The island of Puerto Rico, American 
citizens, has suffered disasters, calamities, as a result of Hurricane 
Maria, yet the President shows no indication that he understands the 
plight of the people on Puerto Rico. That is why it is necessary for 
the House and Senate to come together to provide relief, because the 
President, frankly, has chosen not to do it.
  We welcome the comments by the gentleman. We look forward to the 
Senate establishing members of a conference committee, so we can work 
out differences that we may have and move this forward. We continue to 
hope for that day and hope that the President will gain some 
enlightenment about how we help and protect all American citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, as we have heard so often on the House 
floor, hopeful wishes are not enough for our constituents. We need to 
deliver results.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Dunn), who has been working hard in that direction.
  Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to demand that critical natural 
disaster relief be voted upon.
  Tomorrow will be the 6-month anniversary of Hurricane Michael, 6 
months with absolutely no disaster supplemental funding, no serious 
action on the part of Congress except the political farce in the House 
and two failed cloture votes in the Senate.
  Both Chambers have refused to extend even routine tax relief to 
ensure that people have access to their money when they need it most. 
With tax day just around the corner, this is unacceptable.
  Floridians are tough, but they need help and deserve help.
  Six months ago, Hurricane Michael devastated the South, damaging more 
than 90 percent of the structures on Tyndall Air Force Base, decimating 
our agricultural industry, and destroying entire communities. Yet, here 
we are with only 1 day left in the legislative calendar before Easter 
and no tax relief in sight.
  If the previous question is defeated, it will be a first step in 
making some meaningful progress for victims of all the 2018 disasters. 
It will bring the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019 to the floor. I am a 
proud cosponsor of that bill with   Tom Rice and Austin Scott.
  This bill includes a set of common, routine tax breaks victims of 
virtually every disaster over the last decade have been entitled to, 
things like access to retirement savings without penalty, a tax credit 
for employers who continue to pay employees while shut down, suspending 
tax limitations on charitable contributions for relief efforts, and 
allowing hardworking families to use earned income from the previous 
year to calculate their earned income tax credits and child tax 
credits.
  It is a shame that we have to resort to a procedural trick to ask for 
a vote on this very bipartisan, commonsense legislation that we have 
passed many times before.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time we take action to help those suffering from 
the 2018 disasters. For this reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate what I said earlier, which is 
that all Americans need help in times of disaster.
  Despite the fact that some would try to ignore the fact that climate 
change exists and has created natural disasters that we could not have 
predicted years ago, the fact is that those disasters continue to 
happen.
  All Americans--I don't care whether you live in New York or Alabama, 
Florida, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands--all Americans need help.
  One of the first bills we passed under a structured rule in this 
Congress was to provide that relief, yet it sits in the Senate because 
they seek to choose which Americans get benefited by the Federal 
Government's relief efforts and which do not.
  We are going to stand firmly in the corner of all Americans getting 
the support from the Federal Government that they deserve. We are not 
going to pick and choose.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that my colleagues here across the 
aisle are going to march across to the other Chamber and insist to the 
United States Senate that it takes up that bill, that we establish a 
conference committee, and that we send this to the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I would say to my friend from New York, we do not have any further 
speakers remaining, so if he would like to get this show on the road, I 
am prepared to close if he is.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my friend from New York on the 
Rules Committee, and I really do enjoy serving with him on the Budget 
Committee.

[[Page H3147]]

  It is neat to be on the Budget Committee as a freshman because you 
are working with the biggest issues that we have in this country. We 
all care about healthcare and how it gets implemented, but we can't 
implement it if we can't pay for it, so the Budget Committee grapples 
with those issues.
  We all want our seniors to be protected. They have been paying into 
Medicare and Social Security their entire lives, but we know those 
programs are headed toward bankruptcy. We can't solve those problems 
except in the overarching look of a Federal budget process. It is what 
the law requires.
  We get to talk about those big ideas. We get to think those big 
thoughts. We get to come together to make big and, yes, Mr. Speaker, 
difficult decisions.

  President Trump, in his budget, made difficult decisions. I dare say 
I could go Member to Member in this Chamber and find 435 people out of 
435 who would find at least one flaw in the President's budget. I bet I 
could.
  It is hard to write a budget for the United States of America, but 
the law requires that we do it. More importantly, even if the law 
didn't require that we do it, Mr. Speaker, we know that we should. We 
know the Constitution lays out that responsibility, the power of the 
purse, for the House. We have constituted an entire committee called 
the Budget Committee.
  I don't want to wow you, Mr. Speaker, with my eloquence, but do you 
know what the responsibility of the Budget Committee is? It only has 
one: write the budget.
  For years, there was a time when the Senate was not taking up budgets 
in its Budget Committee. I wondered why they didn't disband the Budget 
Committee because the only job the Budget Committee has is to write the 
budget.
  We know we need to do that together. We know we do, but we are not.
  The second bill this rule makes in order is the government takeover 
of the internet bill. Again, if you think the internet is broken and 
the benevolent hand of government can fix it, this is the bill for you. 
If you think the internet is not broken and perhaps government ought to 
stay where government is, and the freedom of the internet should 
continue, this is not the bill for you.
  We need to defeat both of these bills, and we need to defeat the 
rule.
  I do want to point out, for the Rules Committee, we were working just 
beyond those doors last night, Mr. Speaker, and I think the Rules 
Committee did the best it could with the material that it had to work 
with. I see the staff director of the Rules Committee sitting over 
there. He has a tough job.
  I think the chairman did the best he could. You cannot solve the 
problem of a flawed, partisan committee process with the inclusion of 
amendments in the Rules Committee. You just can't do it. But they tried 
as hard as they possibly could, making in order as many amendments as 
they could to try to satisfy as many concerns as they could.
  The problem is not the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. That is not why 
we need to defeat the rules today. The problem is the leadership 
decision that has been made to bring up these two flawed products that 
were created in a partisan way when we could have brought to the floor 
two positive products created in a collaborative way.
  We have to make a decision in this Chamber. Either we are in the 
business of making a point or we are in the business of making a 
difference. So far, the first 4 months of this year, we have been great 
at making a point, but we have been struggling to make a difference.
  Like it or not, we have a Senate that has to pass this legislation 
and a President who has to sign it if we are to make it the law of the 
land. The two products today fail that test.
  Let's not waste another moment on them, Mr. Speaker, not another 
moment. Let's reject this rule. Let's not bring these two pieces of 
legislation to the floor. Let's go back to the drawing board 
collaboratively, as we know we can. Lock any bipartisan group of 
Members into a room together, Mr. Speaker, and they will craft a better 
solution. We have the right leaders in this Chamber for this time. We 
just need to free them up to lead.
  Defeat this rule. Defeat the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I ask unanimous 
consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with 
extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the passion that Mr. Woodall brings 
to conversations, both here on the floor as well as in the two 
committees on which we are privileged to serve. I thank him for that 
and thank him for his concerns about how we move forward.
  I believe this is moving forward. Today, we are moving forward. We 
set the tone of how we move forward. We establish our discretionary 
amount. We end the sequestration caps. We begin to move forward, and I 
think that is what we want to do.
  It is fascinating. I note that Mr. Woodall, in his comments, 
mentioned you can't get all 435 Members to agree. I certainly 
understand that, and I appreciate it. We couldn't get one Member to 
offer the President's budget as an amendment.
  The truth is that there is a failure of leadership here. This is a 
process that is new to me, but I certainly expected that the President 
would provide greater leadership on how to move forward. We have seen 
none from the White House, which I find troubling and I find puts us at 
a considerable disadvantage.
  We need to move forward, nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, and that is what 
we are doing today.
  I do know that, for me, the amount of discretionary investments we 
make will say a great deal about where we are going as a country and 
what our priorities are.
  I think we need to make greater investments in education and in 
public health, highways and transit, veterans healthcare, agricultural 
research, workplace safety, K-12 education support, national parks, 
housing assistance and mortgage insurance, small business assistance, 
Head Start, food safety, scientific research and space exploration--God 
knows, as a percentage of GDP, we need to continue to invest 
dramatically in those--embassy security, Pell grants for higher 
education students, hazardous waste cleanup, waterway maintenance for 
commerce and recreation, weather forecasting, hurricane-proofing 
communities, forest and wildlife habitat management, conservation 
resources, patents and trademarks, consumer protections, and aviation 
safety.
  The list goes on and on for the kind of investments we need to make 
to continue to make sure that America leads in the 21st century. That 
is what this does today. That is what this rule will do. That is what 
the resolution budget process starts today.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for their words of support for 
H.R. 2021, the Investing for the People Act. I especially thank 
Chairman Yarmuth and Ranking Member Womack for their work on our 
Nation's budget.
  I also thank Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden and all those 
who have worked on H.R. 1644, the Save the Internet Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2145) to provide disaster relief. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. No amendment shall be in order except 
     the amendments specified in section 9 of this resolution. 
     Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
     specified, may be offered only by the Member designated, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. After the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Committee shall rise and

[[Page H3148]]

     report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
     been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises 
     and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, 
     then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 9. The amendments referred to in section 8 of this 
     resolution are as follows:
       (1) A proper amendment, if offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means or his designee; and
       (2) A proper amendment, if offered by the ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee.
       Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2145.

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________