SAVE THE INTERNET ACT OF 2019; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 62
(House of Representatives - April 10, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H3224-H3239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SAVE THE INTERNET ACT OF 2019

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stanton). Pursuant to House Resolution 
294 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 1644.
  Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Cisneros) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  0915


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1644) to restore the open internet order of the Federal 
Communications Commission, with Mr. Cisneros (Acting Chair) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
April 9, 2019, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 6 printed 
in House Report 116-37 offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. 
Wexton) had been postponed.


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Davids of Kansas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. GAO REPORT ON BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE 
                   COMPETITION.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report that--
       (1) examines the efforts by the Federal Communications 
     Commission to assess competition for providers of broadband 
     Internet access service (as defined in section 8.2 of title 
     47, Code of Federal Regulations) in the market;

[[Page H3225]]

       (2) describes how the Commission can better assess 
     competition; and
       (3) includes a description of the steps, if any, the 
     Commission can take to better increase competition among 
     providers of broadband Internet access service (as defined in 
     section 8.2 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations) in the 
     market.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentlewoman 
from Kansas (Ms. Davids) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to the Save the Internet Act that helps the American 
consumer.
  This amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to 
produce a report examining the FCC's efforts to assess competition in 
the wireline and wireless broadband internet access markets, and to 
tell us how the FCC can better assess competition in the future.
  Driving competition in the telecommunications industry is good for 
innovation, consumer pricing, and availability of service. It only 
makes sense then that we should receive an accurate assessment of the 
FCC's current efforts to promote that competition and to ask the GAO 
how they might do it better.
  I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment itself.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I support the goal of this amendment in 
assessing the broadband marketplace and how the government can increase 
competition, lower prices, and improve the quality of service. This is 
a worthy subject for GAO to look into, and I think we can gain valuable 
insights.
  This is something we could have approved in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee had it been brought to us, but we accept it here on the 
floor.
  But if we were really looking for ways to increase competition, Mr. 
Chairman, in the wireless broadband marketplace, then I am baffled why 
Democrats did not find the need to examine how 5G networks will be 
severely threatened by their bill.
  Numerous reports from entities not even in the tech space indicate 
that title II, this overreaching government takeover and the incredible 
power being given to the FCC to take charge of the internet, presents 
serious challenges to 5G deployment and its amazing potential for 
technical improvements.
  These reports come from Barclays, which focuses on investment and 
banking, Oracle, and even the IEEE, which is the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, so it is not a bunch of 
politicians talking about this, Mr. Chairman. These are certified smart 
people, otherwise known as the real engineers, that we went to.
  To quote their analysis, ``5G networks face the challenge of being 
developed in a context of high uncertainty, where most of the services 
that underpin 5G business models appear to be unlawful under current 
rules.''
  One example of the efficiencies that can be realized in a 5G network 
is network slicing which will allow operators to provide different 
services with different performance characteristics to address specific 
use cases. Because 5G is being designed for a wider range of use cases 
than prior technologies, it is critical that quality of service 
management be employed.
  Applying net neutrality to these new 5G networks would cripple the 
performance of this incredible new technology.
  Mr. Guthrie, a Republican from Kentucky, offered an amendment to 
address our serious concerns about the impact of the Democrats' bill on 
5G, but that amendment to preserve the growth of 5G was not given an 
opportunity to be part of today's vote. Sadly, we can't even debate it. 
It is not here.
  New 5G wireless networks will not only one day support apps and web 
pages, and texts, and chats, and video streams, but will also support a 
wide range of new technologies, from autonomous vehicles, augmented 
reality, innovations in healthcare delivery and education, to all other 
kinds of new advances, Mr. Chairman.
  These new innovations, let alone the innovations beyond 5G to come, 
would be simply impossible, we now believe, and I think others believe 
independent of us, with these heavy-handed proposals that will result 
from title II power being given to bureaucrats in Washington. That is 
what the underlying bill would do.
  It is worth remembering that until 2015, the Federal Communications 
Commission treated wireless networks differently when regulating net 
neutrality, because it did not want to impede the growth of a nascent 
technology. If we were to apply that same logic today, we should not 
burden developing 5G networks with onerous and outdated regulations, as 
these 5G networks are even more in their infancy than wireless was back 
in 2010, Mr. Chairman.
  So we need to make sure that we don't handicap this next generation 
of technology with rules designed for rotary telephones that could 
cause us to delay or lose a global race to widely deploy 5G.
  Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks. I support the underlying 
amendment, the Davids amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for 
this outstanding complementary amendment to a very important issue.
  I am, I believe, very much supportive, and I am supportive of the 
idea of the GAO producing a report examining the FCC's efforts to 
assess competition. That is an important record that we in the Congress 
need, and it complements the Save the Internet Act which represents 
true net neutrality protections that are designed for today and 
tomorrow without loopholes.
  The Save the Internet Act includes enhanced transparency protections 
and enacts specific rules against blocking, throttling, and paid 
prioritization.
  Additionally, the Save the Internet Act empowers the FCC to stop 
internet service providers from undermining the net neutrality 
principles through new and harmful mechanisms, but we want to work with 
those providers.

  My colleague just mentioned 5G. Nothing that we do here is going to 
inhibit, I believe, the opportunity for us to work together.
  Ms. Davids' amendment is a vital and important contribution to the 
idea of competition, and the idea of serving your area, and making sure 
that we understand how the competition is increased in wireline and 
wireless broadband internet access to many markets.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I support her amendment, and I 
support the underlying bill, which is the Save the Internet Act, and I 
thank Mr. Doyle for his leadership over the years in this legislation.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other speakers, I don't 
believe. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding.
  It is interesting to hear my good friend talk about 5G. When the 
majority talks about government control of the internet, they should 
turn their eyes to the White House and the President's plan to 
nationalize 5G.
  The only socialist plan to take over the internet is the one coming 
from the Trump administration and their plan to nationalize 5G. I have 
documents for the Record talking about numerous articles where the 
Trump administration proposes to nationalize 5G, and the plan coming 
from the administration to secure 5G.
  The gentleman keeps saying that this bill is a government takeover of 
the internet, but the only government takeover I see is the one that 
the White House keeps proposing.
  Now, the amendment that is before us would ask the GAO to examine how 
the FCC assesses competition, including making recommendations on how 
to improve their assessment and how to increase competition in these 
vital markets. This is a key question for so

[[Page H3226]]

many consumer protections online, not just net neutrality.
  This bill is about consumers, small business, and democratic values 
like competition. This is a good amendment. I support this amendment, 
and I urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I would recommend that my friend from Pennsylvania read 
this Barclays piece on what the bill likely could do to diminish the 
growth in 5G build-out, which I include in the Congressional Record.

    [From Barclays, U.S. Cable, Telecom & Internet, March 25, 2019]

        Net Neutrality: Blunt Tool for a Fast-Changing Ecosystem

       More heat than light in present Net Neutrality debate: 
     While Net Neutrality and related issues have evoked strong 
     passions since the early 2000s, very little of the discussion 
     has evolved despite significant technological and economic 
     shifts. The issue has come back into focus with House 
     Democrats introducing a new bill to reinstate the 2015 
     Internet Order which was repealed by the FCC post the 
     election of President Trump. The issue is also making its way 
     through the courts with 20+ states and tech companies 
     predictably suing against the FCC's repeal. Therefore, this 
     issue is likely to remain in the headlines especially given 
     elections next year.
       Reinstating 2015 Open Internet Order may make it tough to 
     realize full potential of 5G: We believe that Net Neutrality 
     formulations as proposed in Congress are blunt tools to deal 
     with a fast-changing technological landscape. The entire 
     premise of 5G is the ability to enable different network 
     capabilities for different applications. The 5G standards 
     development body, 3GPP, has outlined three major use cases 
     for the technology: enhanced Mobile Broadband, Massive IoT, 
     and ultra-reliable low latency. While all three are likely to 
     be used for consumer-facing applications, two of the three 
     major use cases are also being targeted at industrial users. 
     Dimensions of data use will also be more varied than just 
     speed or volume. Some applications will need to transmit 
     small amounts of data at constant periods (e.g. smart meters) 
     while others will need bursts of high bandwidth consuming 
     traffic (e.g. fixed wireless). Therefore, if implemented, the 
     2015 Open Internet Order framework (ban on paid 
     prioritization and throttling) without accounting for 
     emerging technological capabilities and applications is 
     likely to become a roadblock to 5G monetization.
       Title II could have a bigger operational impact than Net 
     Neutrality: While the Open Internet Order has implications 
     for future business models, if adopted as law, a more 
     immediate concern for Internet service providers will be the 
     push to redefine broadband as a Title II service. 
     Operationally, this could constrain the degrees of freedom 
     around variables such as pricing a lot more than the Open 
     Internet Order itself.
       Overall, while the need for some framework on Net 
     Neutrality is agreed to by both sides of the political 
     divide, the current set of proposals are, in our view, 
     inadequate with material limitations on future business 
     models. The issue requires a comprehensive look at the entire 
     value chain including the edge, but divided regulatory 
     jurisdictions and a split Congress make this difficult to 
     achieve. Therefore, for now, we believe the issue will be 
     resolved by courts and is likely be a headline risk for 
     telecom and cable companies.
       While Net Neutrality evokes strong passions politically, 
     very little of the discussion has evolved despite significant 
     technological and economic shifts. We believe that Net 
     Neutrality formulations as they exist today are blunt tools 
     to deal with a fast-changing technological landscape.
       For instance, the entire premise of 5G is the ability to 
     enable different network capabilities for different 
     applications. The 5G standard development body has outlined 
     three major use cases for the technology. enhanced Mobile 
     Broadband (eMBB), Massive IoT (mIoT) and ultra-reliable low 
     latency (URLLC). While all three are likely to be used for 
     consumer facing applications, two of the three major use 
     cases are also being targeted at industrial users (mIoT and 
     URLLC). Data use across these applications is likely to be 
     quite varied. For instance, smart meters will need to 
     transmit small amounts of data at constant periods while 
     consumer broadband works on bursts of high bandwidth 
     consuming traffic such as video. Applications such as 
     autonomous cars and remote surgery may value lower latency 
     and higher edge computing capacity compared to, for example, 
     checking email or watching video.
       This is quite different from previous generations of 
     wireless standards which thus far have been largely focused 
     on consumer applications. The way Congress appears to be 
     looking at Net Neutrality today or the way the FCC has looked 
     at this in the past would effectively result in operators 
     being forced to provide the same level of service to every 
     application which will not only result in waste but also 
     limit the impact of 5G. In fact, if the promise of 5G is 
     realized the way it has been outlined by operators globally, 
     the whole meaning of what a telecom `service' means (is it 
     latency? is it speed? it is edge compute?) and how it is 
     measured is likely to change meaningfully.
       Some conditions included in the 2015 Order such as paid 
     prioritization and throttling could in theory make it 
     impossible to deploy and monetize some of the features that 
     make 5G a bigger shift than prior generations. In a 5G world, 
     this would make it impossible in theory to prioritize latency 
     for, as an example, a driverless car versus somebody watching 
     Netflix. Of course regulators can fine-tune these definitions 
     but that is not what the House bill seeks to do. It 
     effectively passes this judgment to an administrative body--
     the FCC. Given that FCC decisions on this issue have been 
     split along political affiliations of the Commissioners, 
     every regime at the FCC could make opposing decisions making 
     the implementation of any policy next to impossible. This 
     opens up the entire issue to a lot of uncertainty which is 
     likely to limit the ability of service providers to formulate 
     go-to-market plans for 5G.
       We also believe that the Net Neutrality framework as of 
     today (no prioritization, no blocking and no throttling) is 
     without any nuance to deal with what might be legitimate and 
     consumer-friendly use cases. For instance, Netflix alone 
     consumes  cents19% of downstream bandwidth 
     (wireless and wired) in the US today. In the early days of 
     cable, when bandwidth in the cable pipe was limited due to 
     analog signals, content networks had to pay cable companies 
     for carriage. This allowed a market-based mechanism for 
     viable networks to effectively `buy' bandwidth and scale 
     their services based on how widely they were distributed. 
     Netflix however doesn't have to worry about this dynamic. It 
     can make its technology decisions independent of the 
     investment needs of the network. In theory, Netflix can 
     decide to stream all its videos in 4K and suck up even more 
     bandwidth, which will be to the detriment of other 
     applications on the Internet and force cable and wireless 
     companies to increase their network investment. At the same 
     time, cable companies will have to deal with broadband price 
     monitoring by the FCC (which the 2015 Open Internet Order 
     enables), limiting their ability to pass through price to the 
     consumer or to Netflix (due to a ban on paid prioritization).
       Overall, while the need for some framework on Net 
     Neutrality is unquestionable, the move by the House to just 
     pass the buck back to the FCC to deal with the details is not 
     the right answer in our opinion. This needs a legislative 
     solution on the scale of the 1996 Telecommunications Act but 
     this is almost impossible in the current environment. As a 
     result, we believe this issue is likely to remain unresolved 
     for a long time to come. Near-term, however, if this 
     legislation were to pass, it could have a bigger impact on 
     wireless 5G plans than on wireline operators.

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I would also point out, actually, that the 
bill would regulate 5G. We had a vote in committee to prevent that from 
happening, and every Democrat on the committee voted to regulate 5G 
through this legislation and give the FCC that authority, and every 
Republican voted the other way, because we actually vote for open and 
free internet and markets.
  I know that the gentleman, my friend, was pretty busy when the 
President's people made their statement. I commented that day that I 
didn't think that was a good approach. So I have been on record, and I 
think most of my colleagues have as well. That is kind of an argument 
that, Mr. Chairman, I don't think holds much water.
  What we do know is, we are legislating today, and the Democrats' 
legislation will regulate 5G, and the people who evaluate the effect of 
that say that is going to harm development, rollout, and probably 
investment as well.
  Mr. Chair, the underlying amendment is good, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Davids).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Stanton

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH IN INDIAN COUNTRY REGARDING 
                   THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING THE UNIQUE 
                   BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE CHALLENGES.

       (a) Engagement With Tribal Communities to Address Broadband 
     Internet Access

[[Page H3227]]

     Service Needs.--Not later than 3 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission 
     shall engage with and obtain feedback from Tribal 
     stakeholders and providers of broadband Internet access 
     service (as defined in section 8.2 of title 47, Code of 
     Federal Regulations) on the effectiveness of the Commission's 
     obligation to consult with Indian Tribes to determine whether 
     the Commission needs to clarify the Commission's Tribal 
     engagement statement and ensure accessible and affordable 
     broadband Internet access service (as defined in section 8.2 
     of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations) in the Tribal lands 
     and areas through the engagement and outreach.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) According to an estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau, 
     just 53% of Native Americans living on Tribal lands have 
     access to high-speed internet service.
       (2) The Government Accountability Office has found that the 
     Federal Communications Commission data has overstated 
     broadband availability and access on Tribal lands in the 
     United States.
       (3) A Federal court recently vacated a Federal 
     Communications Commission order that limited Federal 
     subsidies for wireless providers serving Tribal lands.
       (4) The United States Government, industry, and non-
     governmental organizations should do more to identify and 
     address the unique broadband access challenges faced by 
     individuals living on reservations and Tribal lands.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Stanton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, access to high-speed internet is 
absolutely essential in today's economy. It is the key component to our 
Nation's innovation infrastructure.
  Yet, on Tribal lands across this country, a digital divide exists. 
According to the estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 53 percent 
of Native Americans living on Tribal lands have access to high-speed 
internet, compared to 82 percent of households nationally.
  A recent report by the Government Accountability Office examined how 
the Federal Communications Commission collects, validates, and uses 
data on broadband availability. It found that the FCC overstates the 
availability of broadband internet service on Tribal lands.
  For example, if a service provider reports that it could provide 
broadband service internet access to at least one location in a census 
block, the FCC considers broadband to be ``available'' in that census 
block. That doesn't make much sense, and the GAO agreed.
  It found that the FCC's available status is applied too broadly, 
sometimes including communities without infrastructure that connects 
homes to a service provider's network.
  It also found that the FCC does not collect information on factors 
such as affordability, quality, and denials of service. FCC data that 
accurately captures the availability of broadband is critical because 
the Federal Government relies on the data to make important 
investments.
  Without accurate data, the Federal Government will have difficulties 
identifying the true needs and cannot make appropriate investments. 
Part of the challenge in the lack of reliable data stems from the lack 
of meaningful consultation and engagement with Tribal Nations.
  Tribal consultation is more than just checking a box. It is important 
for the FCC to not only listen to Tribes, but to actively engage and 
learn from them. Only by doing so will we be better able to get 
information on where the needs are. That will lead to better decisions 
and better outcomes.
  My amendment would implement one of the GAO's recommendations. It 
would direct the FCC to seek feedback from Tribal stakeholders and 
providers on the effectiveness of its Tribal consultation, as well as 
ensure accessible and affordable broadband on Tribal lands.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I share similar concerns to Mr. Stanton 
about promoting broadband deployment on Tribal lands. I have visited a 
number of reservations around the country, including in Arizona, as 
well as, of course, in my own State of Oregon and elsewhere.
  This is a big issue, and the data are not complete. I agree with you 
that we need to do better. In fact, that is true, and I think we would 
all agree that the data the FCC gets, has, and uses has been a problem 
for a very long time. We have to get better so that when we allocate 
these funds to do the build-out and everything else, we are getting 
funds to the people who really need them. That is especially a problem 
with our Native American friends.
  In fact, while I was presiding over the Energy and Commerce Committee 
last Congress, we accomplished landmark legislation with the enactment 
of RAY BAUM'S Act. That reauthorized the FCC, and it included language 
to improve services on Tribal lands, Mr. Chairman.
  We need to make sure that the policies we impose on the internet 
support broadband deployment, especially deployment in Tribal, rural, 
and very rural areas. Oftentimes, the Tribal areas consist of rural 
areas where we have very small internet service providers providing 
access to the internet, and they are desperately trying to find funding 
to expand their service footprint.
  I was a small business owner with my wife for more than 20 years. I 
will tell you, you are trying to grow your small business, and then the 
government comes in and says: Oh, we want more information. We want 
more requirements. And we are going to regulate you more.
  Mr. Chairman, all that does is take your money and your plan to 
invest and diverts it. You don't get to do as much as you had planned 
to do. That is why I supported an amendment to the underlying bill that 
would have specifically protected a small business from the heavy hand 
of overreporting.
  That amendment would have included the language of my bill on small 
businesses that was passed unanimously by the House in each of the last 
two Congresses--unanimously, right here on this floor. It would have 
extended the exemption for small ISPs from President Obama's FCC's 
enhanced transparency rules for 5 years and expanded the exemption to 
include businesses with 250,000 subscribers or less.
  This was based on a bipartisan compromise that the FCC's original 
exemption was not enough to protect small ISPs. We all agreed to that. 
We negotiated that and twice passed that unanimously in the House.
  I agree that all consumers should be protected, but the enhanced 
transparency rules could deter broadband from being deployed further on 
Tribal lands and reaching consumers in the first place. That is because 
these enhanced disclosures place an unnecessary regulatory burden on 
small businesses and distract them from working to bring broadband 
internet access to customers across the country, especially on Tribal 
lands.
  As a reminder, my amendment would not have let ISPs skirt 
transparency. It did not do that. We are just talking about really 
costly reporting requirements. Instead, they would follow the less 
onerous transparency rules adopted by the FCC back in 2010 so consumers 
would still have access to information needed to make informed 
decisions about their internet service, and ISPs could focus on 
providing service rather than cumbersome regulatory requirements.
  There is bipartisan consensus in improving broadband deployment to 
Tribal lands and, I think, our rural areas and our urban areas that are 
underserved. But it seems my colleagues across the aisle don't support 
this as much as we claim and they claim. Otherwise, I would have 
expected the amendment I had, which reflected exactly what we twice 
agreed to, to be part of the underlying bill. It is not, and that is 
unfortunate. But Mr. Stanton's work is valuable, and I support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3228]]

  

  Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from Congressman 
Walden.
  I would say, in this particular case with this particular amendment, 
this is not the government asking for information from entities that 
don't want to provide it. Just the opposite, the Tribal communities in 
my State and across the United States of America want to provide this 
information and want this very detailed consultation with the FCC so 
that we can provide better investments on Tribal lands.
  This is a situation where government involvement is very much 
welcomed by the entities that we are asking the FCC to better consult 
with. This is welcome government intervention.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  I would say to my good friend, Mr. Walden, and he is my good friend, 
that if you think the President's plan to nationalize 5G is a bad 
idea--and I kind of recall the gentleman saying that. As recently as 
yesterday, the administration in its campaign is still talking about 
nationalizing 5G. Perhaps it is time to get on the phone or to stand up 
here on the House floor publicly and talk about some action that we can 
take as a Congress to make sure that the White House doesn't 
nationalize 5G.
  With the amendment before us, bridging the digital divide is one of 
the great challenges the FCC faces today. The Save the Internet Act is 
going to give the FCC new tools to address that digital divide.
  Although broadband technologies keep getting better, they are not 
reaching everyone, especially those in remote areas, like Native 
Americans living on Tribal lands. These populations face unique 
challenges in getting high-speed internet access service. That is why 
it is critical that the FCC focus on identifying and addressing 
obstacles to getting high-speed internet onto reservations and Tribal 
lands.

  This amendment would instruct the FCC to work more closely with 
Native Americans to help connect Tribal lands. This amendment is 
particularly important because of the Trump FCC's illegal attempt to 
reduce support for the Lifeline program to Tribal communities. This 
decision was ultimately found to be illegal by the courts. However, it 
is critical that the Commission talk and listen to the people who 
understand the problems and represent the communities lacking 
broadband.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief here. The only effort to 
nationalize 5G and to fully regulate 5G is contained in the Democrats' 
bill. That is where it is happening.
  We had an amendment in the Rules Committee to prevent that, and the 
Democrats who control the Rules Committee by a 2-to-1 margin refused to 
even allow us to debate that amendment here on the floor.
  Finally, the President never said he was going to nationalize 5G. 
Somebody leaked a memo out of the White House that said that is a good 
idea. I oppose that. Right that same day, within hours, they had been 
clear on that.
  Let's be clear here. The facts of the matter are that this 
legislation nationalizes and regulates 5G like it has never been done 
before and threatens innovation and development of this exciting new 
opportunity for American consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State 
of California (Mr. McCarthy), who is the Republican leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask a simple yet important question, a 
question more and more Americans are beginning to ask: What have the 
Democrats done with their majority?
  This Friday marks the 100th day of the new Democratic majority, 100 
days of Democratic disappointment.
  Today, we were supposed to debate the Democrats' shell budget, but 
Speaker Pelosi pulled it. So here we are, debating another bill that is 
dead on arrival in the Senate.
  The numbers speak for themselves. At this point in the last Congress, 
Republicans had passed 141 bills out of committee and 132 out of the 
House.
  We all believe in accountability, so what do the numbers say now? By 
contrast, Democrats have passed 68 bills out of committee and 97 out of 
the House, considerably fewer bills out of this House than before.
  But think about this: Democrats have passed more bills out of the 
House than they have out of the committee. So much for doing the job of 
the people's House. No. It is whatever leadership decides.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been lectured countless times by Speaker Pelosi 
over the years, and you all know the comments: Show us your budget, 
show us your values.
  It hasn't been said once, it has been said hundreds of times: Show us 
your budget, show us your values.
  The Speaker and I have disagreements, but I agree that passing a 
budget is the fundamental responsibility of the majority. That is not 
what we are doing today. Unfortunately, it looks like we will never 
know the true values of this majority because there is no budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem goes beyond the Democrats' lack of results. 
As a majority, the Democrats have focused on three principles above all 
else: resolutions, radicalism, and resistance.
  One in five votes in this House that has been taken since the end of 
January were nonbinding messaging resolutions. Just last week, we 
wasted time debating a symbolic resolution on healthcare. Imagine for a 
moment if we had instead spent one-fifth of our time actually working 
to lower premiums, expand choice, or improve quality. Imagine all that 
we could have achieved.
  Right now, we have a humanitarian crisis along our southern border. 
What if we spent one-fifth of our time working to improve border 
security and fix the loopholes in our immigration system?
  No, Mr. Chairman. Democrats would rather consider another nonbinding 
resolution.
  I have never known anybody who has run for office who was asked to 
make sure you go to Congress to waste time on votes that do not matter. 
They send us here to deliver solutions, not resolutions.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better.
  Perhaps the Democratic majority is so focused on resolutions because 
they don't want the American people to understand the consequences of 
their radical, extremist policies.
  The Wall Street Journal wrote: ``Democrats are embracing policies 
that include government control of ever-larger chunks of the private 
American economy.''
  Or, as I like to say, if you like the welfare state, you will love 
the Democratic agenda.
  Take the Green New Deal. Under the guise of fighting climate change, 
it will lead to government control over nearly every element of our 
lives. What it wouldn't do is make housing more available or even 
energy more affordable for hardworking families.
  How about Medicare for All? How do you like a one-size-fits-all 
healthcare system where government bureaucrats, not consumers, decide 
what benefits you are going to receive?
  Mr. Chairman, do you know that more than 100 Democrats in the 
majority have cosponsored this bill? So not only do they support it, 
they crave it to come to the floor.
  What would it do? It would end private insurance. That means 158 
million Americans would lose their insurance. And everybody on Medicare 
Advantage? Gone.
  That is what they worked on these first 100 days.
  Your doctor? Gone.
  Your hospital? Gone.
  Your healthcare plan? Gone.
  On issue after issue, Democrats seem to have but one solution: more 
spending, more bureaucracy, and more government control.

  Mr. Chairman, the American public deserves better.
  Finally, you can learn a lot about this majority by seeing the bills 
they refused to consider these first 100 days.
  After spending weeks unwilling to condemn anti-Semitic remarks, you 
would think House Democrats would rush to schedule real legislation. We 
have a bill sitting at the Speaker's desk right now that would take 
concrete steps to counter the growing boycott, divestment, sanctions 
movement

[[Page H3229]]

against our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel. You would think 
that, Mr. Chairman, but that would be wrong.
  You would think that after the Virginia Governor made comments that 
seemed to support infanticide, House Democrats would rush to schedule 
the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Remember, this bill 
simply ensures that all babies, regardless of when they are born, 
receive the medical care they deserve as human beings. Yet for the 31st 
time--no exaggeration, 31 times we have asked on this floor for 
unanimous consent to bring that bill up--Democrats have refused.
  That is what they spent 100 days on. They refuse to defend newborns 
from infanticide because they are beholden to the most extreme factions 
of their own party.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better.
  The only unifying theme of the Democrats' 100 days has been their 
nonstop resistance to President Trump. For 2 years, Democrats insisted 
that the President colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. Their 
own chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
the one who is supposed to see and protect us, told the American public 
in 2017 that there was more than circumstantial evidence to prove it.
  Yet when the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion, Democrats 
refused to accept the conclusion. They refused to do anything to Adam 
Schiff who had lied to the American public for the last 2 years. They 
didn't apologize for misleading the public either.
  No, without missing a beat and aided by the liberal media, they 
simply opened up new investigations. That is what they did for their 
100 days.
  Who pays for these endless investigations? You, the hardworking 
taxpayer. The Democrats are happy to continue to run up the tab and 
never bring a budget to the floor to show their values.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. Chair, the American public deserves better.
  Today, the Democrats are leaving for their Member retreat and then a 
2-week spring break. Let's hope they come back with more than a tan. 
Let's hope they come back with a new game plan. Let's hope they come 
back ready to work for the common good, not simply to appease their 
extremist, radical base.
  Now, we are ready and eager to work with Democrats. We are ready to 
work with Democrats to secure our border. We are ready to work with 
Democrats to upgrade our infrastructure. We are ready to work with 
Democrats to lower the cost of prescription drugs and address the 
opioid crisis.
  We stand ready to work with anyone to solve the problems our country 
faces, in the next 100 days and beyond. After 100 days, please, Mr. 
Chair, let's get to work. The American people deserve nothing less.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Neguse). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Trone

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. ACCURACY OF DATA UNDERLYING BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT 
                   REPORTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Commission has released reports on its inquiries 
     under section 706(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
     (47 U.S.C. 1302(b)) that detail the state of the deployment 
     of broadband service in the United States.
       (2) Congress and the Commission have relied upon the 
     accuracy of such reports to develop broadband policy.
       (3) The findings of such reports have been particularly 
     important to fostering rural broadband deployment and 
     broadband deployment to schools and classrooms.
       (b) Requirements.--The Commission--
       (1) may not release a report on an inquiry under section 
     706(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 
     1302(b)) based on broadband deployment data that the 
     Commission knows to be inaccurate; and
       (2) shall use its best efforts to accurately detail 
     broadband deployment in the United States and correct 
     inaccuracies in statements made by the Commission prior to 
     the release of a report about the report.
       (c) Commission Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Commission'' means the Federal Communications Commission.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Trone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In 21st century America, having reliable, high-speed internet 
broadband isn't a luxury; it is a necessity. Just like running water or 
electricity, it is part of our essential infrastructure, yet millions 
of Americans in rural communities, including some in my district in 
western Maryland, remain disconnected from the internet.
  That lack of connectivity leads to homework gaps, healthcare gaps, 
and economic development gaps. It is our job in Congress to eliminate 
those gaps.
  The Federal Communications Commission is required to report accurate 
data to the public so that we can make effective decisions about rural 
broadband infrastructure policy and investment.
  But there is strong evidence that the percentage of Americans without 
broadband access is much higher than the FCC's numbers indicate.
  In order to justify Chairman Pai's deregulation agenda, the FCC 
released highly flawed and misleading data that paints a false picture 
of broadband deployment in rural America.
  We now know the FCC's data was based on a massive error that was 
brought to his attention before the FCC disseminated the press release 
touting their success. That kind of deception could lead to millions of 
our neighbors in rural America being locked out of this critical good.
  This amendment seeks to address this issue by, one, prohibiting the 
FCC from releasing a report based on information it knows to be 
inaccurate; and, two, specifying the Commission must use its best 
efforts to ensure all future reports are accurate, and they must 
correct past inaccuracies prior to the release of new data on broadband 
deployment.
  It is pretty simple. We need accurate information to make the best 
decisions regarding broadband deployment. Let's ensure we get that from 
the FCC moving forward, and then let's ensure every American has access 
to reliable high-speed broadband.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, but I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's concern about the accuracy of 
the FCC's reports on deployment. I share those. And with his broader 
concern about broadband generally, I agree with that.
  In fact, many Members on both sides of the aisle share these 
concerns, especially when it comes to the unserved Americans in our 
most rural areas, like my district that would stretch from the Atlantic 
to Ohio. It is a big district.
  So, I will support this amendment. However, I would ask my colleagues 
to seriously consider, Mr. Chairman, the negative impacts of giving the 
FCC power to regulate rates on rural broadband deployment.
  Mr. Kinzinger's amendment to block any sort of rate regulation was 
actually blocked by the majority from being considered today, and that 
is unfortunate.
  At the full committee markup, Mr. Kinzinger highlighted a memo from 
the Congressional Research Service that noted there is nothing 
permanent to the forbearance that the majority claims to be doing when 
it comes to controlling the prices providers charge consumers.

[[Page H3230]]

  So, we could get into rate regulation through the FCC, and every ISP 
would have to come back here and beg and explain their rate structure 
and everything else. And we have got thousands of them.
  The majority attempted to remedy this flaw with some additional 
language purporting to lock in the FCC's forbearance on this matter, 
but the actual effect of that language is still unclear.
  Most importantly, they left open the broad authority of sections 201 
and 202 of the Communications Act and other authority that gives the 
Federal Communications Commission, all five unelected officials, plenty 
of leeway to regulate rates under title II.
  The legislation we have before us clearly leaves the door open to 
rate regulation. If this were not the case, then the Kinzinger 
amendment, I would think, would be before the House today or would have 
been approved in committee when we had a chance to do that.
  This is no way to conduct business in the internet age. These title 
II regulations were originally implemented for railroad monopolies in 
the 19th century. So, if you really believe in a competitive, open 
marketplace and a competitive, open internet, you don't turn it over to 
unelected bureaucrats in Washington to micromanage.
  As they were applied in their original incarnation, the requirements 
of just and reasonable practices under section 201(b) and no 
unreasonable discrimination under 202(a)--which, by the way, sound 
perfect--provided sufficient authority to impose price controls on 
railroads.
  So, by opening the door with title II and these other sections of 
law, you are now giving this vast power to basically three unelected 
officials at the FCC. You just need a majority to decide how the whole 
internet runs. I think that is a problem.
  Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, good policy simply needs good data. We need accurate, 
reliable information to target our policies and resources as 
effectively as possible.
  This amendment simply ensures reports issued by the FCC are accurate, 
and we should all be able to agree on that. And I thank the gentleman 
for that.

  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, the Save the 
Internet Act will ensure net neutrality and help bring the internet to 
parts of the country that don't yet have it.
  I would say to my friend from Oregon, the bill is crystal clear on 
rate regulation. The language clearly prohibits any rate regulation, so 
rural folks need not worry about that.
  Through the act, the FCC will have the authority to accelerate 
deployment of broadband by removing barriers to infrastructure 
investment and by promoting competition. And, furthering that goal, 
Congress requires that the FCC report on the state of broadband 
deployment nationwide.
  The results, every year, are particularly important because they are 
used to figure out where to best direct funds for rural broadband 
deployment. And to name a few, that is important for consumers, 
schools, libraries, and hospitals that they get the connections they 
need.
  And we need to know that the FCC's data is accurate. We expect the 
FCC to use its best efforts to ensure that the data is up to date and 
error free before releasing their reports.
  Recently, the traditional diligence of the FCC has been called into 
question. According to news reports, the FCC is preparing a report that 
contains data that an internet service provider has told the FCC is 
wrong. The carrier reported that it provided high-speed broadband to 
everyone in 10 states when its actual service area was a fraction of 
that.
  This serious oversight seriously alters the state of broadband 
deployment in this country and calls into question data used by this 
administration to justify other policies.
  Despite that internet service provider coming forward, the FCC has 
not even corrected a press statement that was, in part, based on that 
erroneous data entitled ``America's Digital Divide Narrows 
Substantially.''
  As the expert agency regulating broadband, it cannot knowingly put 
out false information that misleads the public. This amendment will 
help remedy that. That is why I support it, and that is why I think we 
should all vote for it.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. As I said, I intend to 
support it. We need the facts here, and I support getting the facts.
  We know the reporting data we often get is not accurate. And, if 
people are lying about their data, then we should hold them 
accountable, and I'll join you in that effort. That is not acceptable.
  On the issue of rate regulation, that is what title II is all about. 
That is what this bill gives the FCC the authority to do.
  While you can argue that adopting the forbearances that the FCC did 
under title II when they had that authority may preclude rate 
regulation there, by giving them this enormous authority, your own 
counsel testified in answer to our question, that they could go through 
a standard rulemaking process and use sections 201 and 202 to do their 
own rate regulation.
  You see, you may close the front door, but you left the back door 
open. Actually, you created a back door.
  That is where I am concerned, and my side is concerned that you are 
empowering the FCC with these incredible authorities designed for 
monopoly railroads and designed for monopoly communications systems 
that could really hamper future investment in things like 5G and 
provide all this micromanagement of the internet and harm consumers. 
That is why so many of us oppose this particular provision.
  I keep seeing Republicans on this floor, Mr. Chairman, accept the 
Democrats' amendments in almost every case. They blocked some of ours 
from being able to be considered.
  But, when it comes to this fundamental issue of turning the internet 
over to the Federal Government and three unelected people to do 
incredible things that aren't good for the long-term benefit of 
consumers and new technologies, we have to remain opposed.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRONE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Brindisi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4 GAO REPORT ON HIGH-SPEED INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress and the Federal 
     Communications Commission a report that contains--
       (1) a list of ways the Federal Government can promote the 
     deployment of broadband Internet access service, especially 
     the buildout of such service to rural areas and areas without 
     access to such service at high speeds; and
       (2) recommendations with respect to policies and 
     regulations to ensure rural areas are provided affordable 
     access to broadband Internet access service.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Broadband internet access service.-- The term 
     ``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (2) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means any area 
     other than--

[[Page H3231]]

       (A) a city, town, or incorporated area that has a 
     population of more than 20,000 inhabitants; or
       (B) an urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or 
     town that has a population of more than 50,000 inhabitants.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Brindisi) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
his leadership on this important topic.
  The free market is the cornerstone of America's economy, and this 
bill would ensure that free-market competition is protected on the 
internet.
  However, for many Americans living in small towns, basic internet 
access remains out of reach. Too many homes in rural areas are not 
connected at all to high-speed broadband, and those that are online 
suffer from slow speeds and constant interruptions in service.
  Customers see their bills go up month after month, and service just 
gets worse and worse.
  Internet access is essential in today's economy, and we need to do 
more to connect rural areas to high-speed broadband.
  My amendment would direct the Government Accountability Office to 
issue recommendations on how to expand broadband internet service in 
rural and other underserved areas. This information will help guide our 
work on how to best expand broadband access in rural communities.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, and I, again, thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this bill and urge our 
colleagues to pass the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I support this amendment to require 
the GAO to look into ways to promote deployment of broadband to our 
most rural and underserved areas. It is a very worthy subject and one 
on which I think we can find some really broad bipartisan agreement. It 
is a top priority of mine and has been, so I won't oppose the 
amendment.
  We are obviously delegating a lot of authority to the GAO, which is a 
wonderful organization, but we all have had hearings and know what 
really needs to happen, I think, going forward to get broadband built 
out. However, if you are really concerned about deployment to rural and 
underserved areas, you should be extremely concerned about the impact 
the underlying bill is going to have on our ability to get broadband 
out to these areas and close the digital divide.
  Title II is a proven investment killer, period, hard stop. This is 
shown not only in the overall nationwide investment numbers going down 
during the only 2-year blip these rules were in effect. Remember, my 
colleague from New York, these internet rules you are about only 
existed for less than about 2 years. That is it.
  The whole growth, the expansion of the internet and broadband 
occurred during the period of the 1990s to 2015. Then the internet 
order was put in and investment went down, and then the internet order 
was repealed and investment is going up.
  The head of the Eastern Oregon Telecom Company, Joe Franell, came 
back to Washington and testified before our subcommittee and said, 
under title II, his investors lost interest; deals dried up; the bank 
wouldn't even give him a loan. It was an extremely compelling story 
from somebody who is on the front lines of getting broadband built out 
to the very areas you and I would agree need service.
  And we heard from many other small rural ISPs as well with the same 
stories. They are the ones that take the worst hit under title II that 
is in this bill you support.
  Now, I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee to do something 
real to address the worst uncertainties that these small carriers have 
to deal with under title II.
  Title II opens the door to government control of private networks. It 
opens the door to government taxation of the internet. It opens the 
door to government regulation of speech online.
  My amendment would have closed all of those doors. Unfortunately, the 
Democrats, again, who control the Rules Committee, Mr. Chairman, 2 to 
1, would not find a way to even allow us to bring that amendment here 
for a vote or debate.
  I have to say, under title II, our smallest rural ISPs would have a 
really tough time, and we have seen a lot of evidence of this in the 
past. So I hope my friends will consider that, when we are voting on 
this underlying bill, we are actually going to cause those small ISPs 
more harm than good, and that will delay deployment into unserved and 
underserved communities.
  A GAO study on deployment will have no impact whatsoever on 
deployment-killing excesses of title II, but it will give us some ideas 
about how to build out broadband, so I won't oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  We keep hearing this talk about how investment plummeted after the 
2015 order. Well, we all know that is not true, and the proof is in the 
pudding.
  Investment data shows an aggregate increase in investment following 
the FCC's February 2015 vote to adopt the open internet rules compared 
to the 2 years following the repeal of the 2015 order, when investment 
actually decreased.
  The same is true of most ISPs' individual investments. The majority 
of publicly traded broadband providers reported investment increases 
after the 2015 order was adopted. In the first year following adoption 
of the 2015 rules, census data showed a $3.5 billion jump in capital 
spending in data processing, hosting, and related services.
  Moreover, the repeal of the 2015 order did not result in a use boost 
to infrastructure spending, as the Trump FCC asserted would happen. 
Instead, investment actually decreased.
  This amendment before us is important. Though many of our 
constituents enjoy easy access to high-speed broadband, there are still 
many pockets of this country that aren't served by high-speed 
broadband. Or, as my good friend Peter Welch from the great State of 
Vermont says about the promises of 5G: ``Some of us have no Gs.''
  The Save the Internet Act is going to restore net neutrality 
throughout the country, and it is going to give the FCC key authorities 
that buttress critical programs, such as the Connect America Fund that 
provides money to build high-speed broadband out to areas where it 
would not be economic to do so without the funding.
  The Save the Internet Act also gives internet service providers 
nondiscriminatory access to rights of way and poles, which will 
facilitate build-out in rural areas.
  Unless we connect our rural communities, the people in them cannot 
fully be active participants in the 21st century economy. They are 
missing out on education and workforce opportunities that are so often 
now delivered online. That is why much of the rural broadband 
deployment in this country is funded by the Connect America Fund.
  This amendment would require GAO to examine these issues and to 
provide a report with recommendations about how the government can 
promote build-out to hard-to-reach or otherwise overlooked communities. 
This is such an important policy issue and such an important part of 
saving the internet.
  I look forward to joining my colleagues in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. BRINDISI. Mr. Chairman, I again urge adoption of the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I appreciate both my colleagues' comments, but 
the nationwide numbers of investment obscure what happens in our 
smallest investors, among those that are out

[[Page H3232]]

there, like Joe Franell in Eastern Oregon trying to build out.
  What we do know is he came back and testified to the problem he 
encountered individually as one who is very progressive and active, 
trying to connect really difficult places to get to with the highest 
speed broadband possible.
  I have met with him before; I have met with him during; I have met 
with him afterwards. He came back on his own dime to make the case 
that, when these rules were in effect, he had difficulty getting loans; 
he had difficulty building out; he was burdened more than he had ever 
been before, and that diminished his ability to build out.
  His numbers probably are dust in terms of investment that the big 
companies have, but that is who I care about are the little operators 
that are so pushed down by this heavy hand of government 
overregulation. So that is, I think, what we have to maintain our focus 
on.
  Again, title II gives these vast unprecedented powers to the FCC to 
regulate the internet like it has never been regulated before. People 
who have no Gs need our help, but people waiting for 5G don't need us 
to pass legislation that will screw it up and diminish innovation, and 
that is one of the reasons I am opposing this version of net 
neutrality.
  We could agree on no throttling and no blocking and the paid 
prioritization issue as well.
  The other thing I found interesting, Mr. Chairman, is, throughout the 
course of all of our hearings, there wasn't a witness panel of people 
who had faced all of these parade of horribles we have heard about from 
ISPs.
  There weren't any witnesses. They didn't bring anybody. I don't know 
if they are out there or not. They didn't bring anybody who has been 
affected by the edge providers, however, and that is another subject 
for our conversation going forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Brindisi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Spanberger

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. GAO REPORT ON CHALLENGES TO ACCURATE MAPPING.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall--
       (1) determine the accuracy and granularity of the maps 
     produced by the Federal Communications Commission that depict 
     wireline and wireless broadband Internet access service 
     deployment in the United States; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report that--
       (A) identifies--
       (i) any program of the Federal Communications Commission 
     under a rule restored under section 2(b) that relies on such 
     maps, including any funding program; and
       (ii) any action of the Federal Communications Commission 
     taken under a rule restored under section 2(b) that relies on 
     such maps, including any assessment of competition in an 
     industry; and
       (B) provides recommendations for how the Federal 
     Communications Commission can produce more accurate, 
     reliable, and granular maps that depict wireline and wireless 
     broadband Internet access service deployment in the United 
     States.
       (b) Broadband Internet Access Service Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``broadband Internet access service'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my commonsense 
broadband mapping amendment to H.R. 1644, the Save the Internet Act of 
2019.
  The digital gap between our rural and urban communities is real, and 
I hear about it from the people I serve every day.
  According to the FCC's 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, more than 30 
percent of rural Americans lack access to high-speed fixed broadband, 
compared to only 2 percent of urban Americans. This disparity has long-
term implications for the economic strength and security of our 
country.
  In rural America, a lack of reliable broadband internet makes it 
harder for businesses to find customers and attract new employees. 
Without reliable broadband internet, communities across this country 
face challenges attracting new businesses and investment.
  In rural America, farmers have a tougher time using the latest 
precision agriculture technology, and in places without reliable 
broadband internet, kids find it difficult to complete their homework 
assignments.
  In our district in central Virginia, farmers and producers are 
disadvantaged because the lack of broadband makes doing business 
harder. In our district, constituents drive their kids to McDonald's or 
to neighboring counties so that they can complete their research 
projects for school. And what is happening in our district is happening 
nationwide.
  Today, we are considering a critical piece of legislation to champion 
the idea of a free and open internet.
  There is no question that rural broadband internet access should be a 
part of this conversation, as this bill would also include a provision 
to restore the FCC's authority to fund the expansion of broadband 
access across our rural communities. But right now, there are many 
questions surrounding the accuracy of the FCC's broadband internet 
maps, which detail which areas in the United States have high-speed 
internet coverage and which do not.
  These maps have important implications for our rural communities, 
schools, and businesses. These maps are used to award funding and 
subsidies to expand broadband coverage to areas that don't have it, 
and, in many cases, these efforts have led to great success.
  However, these maps have been found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or 
unreliable. Often a map will claim an entire area is covered by high-
speed broadband when, in reality, only a small portion of that area has 
reliable coverage.
  This trend should not be the status quo in our digital age because it 
leaves so many rural families underserved. Areas where the FCC's maps 
incorrectly say there is high-speed rural broadband connectivity are 
often ineligible for funding to expand broadband, and these 
inaccuracies greatly disadvantage our rural communities.
  Erroneous information in these maps could be the difference between a 
senior citizen being able to access lifesaving telemedicine services or 
not; it could be the difference between a farmer who can keep up with 
market fluctuations halfway across the world or not; and it could 
control the ability of a young, aspiring student to access online 
information, college applications, and research materials.
  My amendment to the Save the Internet Act would address a lack of 
reliable broadband internet connectivity in our rural communities, and 
it would begin to fix the errors in our current broadband maps.
  My amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to 
produce a full report that examines the accuracy and quality of the 
FCC's broadband mapping. This report would also identify what the FCC 
should do to produce more accurate, reliable, and high-quality maps.
  Additionally, the GAO report required by my amendment would help 
identify the scope of the broadband mapping problem and actually 
suggest solutions. With this new information, the FCC would be better 
able to update its maps so that we can properly target our broadband 
expansion efforts to the rural towns, townships, and communities across 
our district.
  Better maps of broadband coverage are a critical first step toward 
getting high-speed internet to every household, something we should aim 
to do in our globalized, digitally-focused economy. As we are having 
important discussions about protecting and expanding reliable access to 
the internet, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to H.R. 
1644.

[[Page H3233]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I don't think I am opposed to the amendment.

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with my colleague from 
Virginia that the maps showing broadband deployment in the United 
States can and must be improved. That is why, when Republicans held the 
majority for the Energy and Commerce Committee, we held numerous 
hearings on how to do that, how to improve broadband mapping at the 
FCC.
  We also shared legislation with our Democratic--then minority--
colleagues to bring in the expertise of the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration to aggregate granular data beyond the 
carrier data that the FCC uses for its maps.
  Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn't 
want to work with us to improve mapping last Congress. I am more 
hopeful this time that we can engage--we are ready, willing, and able 
to do so--and that we can address this matter.
  Mapping is clearly important--I think we all agree on that--and it is 
where we should focus our limited Federal money on broadband support. 
But rather than help spur broadband deployment and provide more 
granular data, the underlying legislation would make it more difficult 
on broadband providers to deploy broadband.
  We just discussed how investment in broadband, especially for our 
small providers, suffered under title II. They came and testified to 
that.
  But my reservation on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, has to do with 
the conflict that I see between the Wexton amendment, No. 5, and the 
Spanberger amendment, No. 11. I wonder if the gentlewoman from Virginia 
would care to comment about that, and I would be happy to yield. I 
didn't have a chance to talk with her. It may not be fair.
  The issue here is the Wexton amendment, which we did not oppose, 
requires the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress, 
within 30 days, a plan for how the Commission will evaluate and address 
problems with the collection of form 477 data.

                              {time}  1015

  I believe those are the same data we are talking about with your 
amendment to have the GAO do this investigation and report to Congress 
as well.
  The conflict I see is, on the one hand, we are telling the FCC to go 
do its work and report back in 30 days, but in your amendment, we are 
telling the GAO to go do its work and tell us eventually where the 
problems are. They can do that, but we have already told the FCC to 
report back its answers.
  I am not going to oppose the amendment, but it seems like there is 
kind of a conflict here, potentially. Because we want to get it right, 
it seems like we would wait to have the FCC report back until the GAO 
had completed its work. Then we could work with the FCC to say, okay, 
now that we know what the GAO has found and informed us on, then, FCC, 
go and report back.
  I might have structured this a little differently had we had time to 
work out some of that.
  I am not going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. We have to get 
the data right. We have to get the mapping right.
  When the stimulus came out in the Obama administration, I argued this 
very point in the committee. We were in the minority then, so of 
course, I lost. But they were spending money that was being set aside 
in the stimulus to build out broadband in America before they had the 
maps to figure out where people were underserved and unserved.
  It seemed kind of backward then, and I think it was. We didn't get 
the maps until after the money was allocated. The time to do the audits 
and evaluations of how that money was spent, the money for that ran out 
before the build-out was finished, so we had to come back to look at 
that. Then we did find limited cases of fraud and abuse, not much, 
frankly, but enough. It is taxpayer dollars.
  I won't oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I think we can work out 
these things if this bill were to move forward, but the timing is the 
issue that I have some reservations on.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Virginia has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I would say to my friend, I think what we are trying to do 
in these two amendments is, we need the FCC to get on this as soon as 
possible, but we need the GAO to continue to look at this. But I 
understand what the gentleman is saying.
  Look, we know these maps are wrong. I mean, nobody is arguing about 
that, and it is unacceptable. What the gentlewoman's amendment would do 
is ask the GAO to do a report to examine the current mapping processes 
for both wireless and wired line services.
  They would also be asked to identify what FCC programs and actions 
rely on maps and to make recommendations on how the FCC could produce 
more reliable maps.
  I think this is an important amendment. I support it, and I urge all 
my colleagues to support it also.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and the 
gentleman's comments. We can figure out how to work this out, I think. 
But clearly, we have to fix the maps.
  Even the industry has told me, at least--they admit the data, the way 
it is collected and everything else, is not an accurate representation. 
They would like our help in this as well.
  Hopefully, we can move forward on an NTIA reauthorization as well. We 
marched through a number of agency reauthorizations and programmatic 
reauthorizations that hadn't been done in decades in the last 2 years. 
We should continue that important work as well. We stand ready as 
Republicans to join our colleagues to get that done.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. McAdams

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part A of House Report 116-37.
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. LAWFUL CONTENT.

       (a) In General.--As described in the Report and Order on 
     Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the matter of 
     protecting and promoting the open internet that was adopted 
     by the Federal Communications Commission on February 26, 2015 
     (FCC 15-24)--
       (1) nothing in this Act prohibits providers of broadband 
     Internet access service from blocking content that is not 
     lawful, such as child pornography or copyright-infringing 
     materials; and
       (2) nothing in this Act imposes any independent legal 
     obligation on providers of broadband Internet access service 
     to be the arbiter of what is lawful content.
       (b) Broadband Internet Access Service Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``broadband Internet access service'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. McAdams) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 
1644, the Save the Internet Act.
  As the father of four children, I worry about what my kids see on 
social media and online, and I know firsthand how important it is that 
illegal content doesn't pollute the internet.
  My amendment would affirm that this bill preserves broadband internet

[[Page H3234]]

service providers' ability to block unlawful content, including 
disturbing and harmful materials like child pornography.
  We are here today to vote on legislation to protect the internet as 
an engine of innovation and open communication free from undue 
restrictions, such as blocking legal content and services, throttling 
service, and paid prioritization of content. While the bill does not, 
as currently written, revoke service providers' ability to block 
illegal content, I believe the House can agree that we should 
nonetheless affirm our commitment to stopping unlawful behaviors, such 
as viewing child pornography and copyright infringement.
  My amendment does not impose additional or onerous legal requirements 
on service providers to act as an arbiter of lawfulness but, rather, 
ensures providers can continue working with consumer watchdogs and law 
enforcement to keep our internet free from illegal content and to make 
it safe for our families.
  Let me reiterate this amendment also does not grant ISPs any new 
rights to block content that is lawful or decide what is lawful on the 
internet. My amendment simply stands for the proposition that unlawful 
content is not protected by net neutrality rules.
  It is one thing to say ISPs can block content subject to a valid 
court order and quite another to let ISPs make decisions about the 
lawfulness of content for themselves. This amendment strikes that 
balance.
  We have bipartisan consensus on the tremendous value of the 
internet's contribution to our society's innovation and communication, 
and I also know that there is bipartisan concern about severe illegal 
misuses of the internet's power. I believe my amendment offers us an 
opportunity to confirm our support once again for a free internet with 
unfettered access to legal content and to our vehement opposition to 
child pornography.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the members of the committee for their work on 
this legislation, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague across the aisle, 
Mr. McAdams, that ISPs should be able to block unlawful content, and I 
support his amendment.
  In fact, even when the FCC imposed the heavy-handed title II 
regulations, it recognized in paragraph 113 of its order that the ban 
on blocking did not ``prevent or restrict a broadband provider from 
refusing to transmit unlawful material, such as child pornography or 
copyright-infringing materials.''
  This was similar to the FCC's earlier nonblocking rule, which was 
also affirmed, that ISPs could block material that was unlawful.
  It strikes me as interesting that you have to have this amendment to 
apparently clarify an ambiguity some must feel exists in the underlying 
bill, but we will support it if it is necessary to do that.
  I firmly support net neutrality that allows Americans to enjoy the 
lawful content on the internet and applications of their choosing.
  I would point out to my friend from Utah that the concerns about 
social media, and I share them, are not covered by this legislation. 
Those big platforms are completely exempt, as near as we can tell, so 
that is another area where I think we all share a common bond, that 
there is concern about what goes on in social media, things that aren't 
legal, things that are fake. I mean, you name it.
  Under title II, the FCC could police internet content, as it 
currently does with content broadcasts over television or radio. I was 
a radio broadcaster for 21 years, owned and operated stations, and that 
concerns me a bit if we are going to get the FCC being the Nation's 
speech police. By making further rules on the ISPs, you might be able 
to end up there. That is a concern.
  This is a really broad, open-ended authority that you all are giving 
to the Federal Communications Commission. That is because the FCC did 
not forebear from some content-specific provisions of title II, such as 
section 223. That would give the FCC authority to impose content-based 
restrictions if it found it to be ``just and reasonable.'' That goes 
well beyond just the legal content, I think.
  I am not burdened with a law degree, but I have some really good 
lawyers that counsel me on these matters.
  This is why we offered an amendment that would have put certain 
protections in place for consumers' freedom of speech online because 
that is also something we all swear to uphold, our First Amendment 
rights of religion and speech.
  Rather than talk about how we can prevent the FCC from someday 
abusing the expansive authority that the majority is about to give it, 
we are here discussing something that has been universally agreed upon 
by all parties to this debate.
  Mr. Chair, we appreciate the gentleman's perfecting amendment to this 
legislation. I intend to support it.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Michael F. Doyle) for the purpose of a colloquy.

  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I would ask the 
Congressman, my understanding of his amendment is that it simply 
restates what is already in the 2015 Open Internet Order, namely, that 
nothing in this bill would prohibit ISPs from blocking unlawful content 
and that nothing in this act adds any additional requirement or right 
for an ISP to decide what is lawful content?
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, yes, that is correct. Nothing in this 
amendment grants any sort of new rights to an ISP. Rather, this 
amendment simply stands for the proposition that unlawful content is 
not protected by net neutrality rules. In other words, blocking 
unlawful content does not violate net neutrality.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the 
gentleman for clarifying that. I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Since this is the last of the amendments to be offered, I wanted to 
take this time to thank my friend and the Republican side for a 
vigorous debate not only in our committee but here on the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I would be remiss if I didn't thank our staffs, namely 
Alex Hoehn-Saric, Jerry Leverich, Jennifer Epperson, AJ Brown, Dan 
Miller, Kenneth Degraff, and my telecom staff, Philip Murphy. Without 
him, I wouldn't sound as intelligent as I do on these matters. I thank 
all of the Democratic staff. They worked very hard, and they deserve 
our thanks.
  Mr. Chair, this has been a vigorous debate, as it should be, but we 
are coming to a close now, and I thank my friend for his participation.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I again thank the gentleman from Utah for bringing this amendment. I 
guess my suspicions were right: It is merely restating what is already 
in the 2015 order, which is what this bill basically reinstates into 
law.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my staff as well for the great job they have done. 
I appreciate both sides as we work together on these complicated and 
sometimes controversial issues.
  I would point out that, under sections 223 and 201, you are again 
opening the door to vast new regulation of speech and content, I 
believe and our attorneys believe, by giving the FCC this authority.
  I am a First Amendment guy. I have a degree in journalism. I believe 
in free speech. Sometimes, I don't like that speech. Sometimes, I find 
it offensive. The stuff that is illegal, you bet, we are all together 
on. But there are some interesting stories coming out around Europe and 
elsewhere where countries now, especially some of those in the more 
authoritarian parts of the world, are using this argument to crack down 
on political speech they find offensive.
  I think we have to be very careful as Republicans, as Democrats, as 
all

[[Page H3235]]

Americans to try to find that balance between the obvious and the 
speech that really is about protecting the powerful. I think we can 
find common ground on that, but I do wince a bit that we are opening 
the door, or you all are with your bill, to giving the FCC the power to 
tax the internet, the power to regulate speech on the internet by going 
through a rulemaking.
  I think that heads us in a little more dangerous direction and, 
meanwhile, does not address some of the issues I hear in townhalls. I 
have done 20 of them in every county in my district this year. When 
people begin to step up and have issues, it is not the ISPs they are 
complaining about, other than speeds and connectivity, that sort of 
thing. It is what is happening on some of the social media platforms, 
which are not addressed by this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. McAdams).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be 
postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
116-37 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Delgado of New York.
  Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Wexton of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. McAdams of Utah.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

                              {time}  1030


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Delgado

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Delgado) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 363, 
noes 60, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 163]

                               AYES--363

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Connolly
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Dunn
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Green (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (TX)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norton
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young

                                NOES--60

     Allen
     Amash
     Banks
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (UT)
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Budd
     Burchett
     Carter (GA)
     Cline
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Guest
     Harris
     Hern, Kevin
     Hice (GA)
     Hunter
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lesko
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Meuser
     Mooney (WV)
     Norman
     Palmer
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Rice (SC)
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Schweikert
     Steube
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Williams
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Abraham
     Amodei
     Babin
     Cicilline
     Cooper
     McEachin
     Olson
     Radewagen
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Weber (TX)
     Welch

                              {time}  1055

  Messrs. BROOKS of Alabama, FERGUSON, and RICE of South Carolina 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WENSTRUP, WESTERMAN, SCALISE, WATKINS, Mrs. RODGERS of 
Washington, Messrs. KELLY of Pennsylvania, and BARR changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Wexton

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia 
(Ms. Wexton) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 376, 
noes 46, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page H3236]]

  


                             [Roll No. 164]

                               AYES--376

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Allred
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Connolly
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Fulcher
     Gabbard
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Green (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norton
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Wenstrup
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young
     Zeldin

                                NOES--46

     Banks
     Barr
     Biggs
     Bishop (UT)
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Budd
     Burchett
     Chabot
     Cline
     Conaway
     DesJarlais
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Gaetz
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Grothman
     Harris
     Hern, Kevin
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Lamborn
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Massie
     Mast
     McHenry
     Mooney (WV)
     Norman
     Posey
     Rice (SC)
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Schweikert
     Steube
     Walker
     Webster (FL)
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wright
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Abraham
     Amodei
     Babin
     Cooper
     Langevin
     McEachin
     Olson
     Radewagen
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1102

  Mr. FERGUSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 164.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. McAdams

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
McAdams) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 423, 
noes 0, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--423

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Allred
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Fulcher
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Green (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Norton
     Nunes

[[Page H3237]]


     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Abraham
     Amodei
     Babin
     Bishop (UT)
     Hurd (TX)
     McEachin
     Olson
     Radewagen
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Sanchez
     Stanton
     Weber (TX)
     Welch

                              {time}  1110

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Escobar). The question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Neguse) having assumed the chair, Ms. Escobar, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1644) to 
restore the open internet order of the Federal Communications 
Commission, and, pursuant to House Resolution 294, she reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit and it is at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. WALDEN. Oh, my gosh, Mr. Speaker, in its current form, yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Walden moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1644 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING INTERNET TAX FREEDOM 
                   ACT.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, impair, 
     supersede, or authorize the modification, impairment, or 
     supersession of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 
     note).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 
5 minutes.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is actually pretty simple, 
and Members have a clear choice today on the floor: Are you for taxing 
the internet or not? That is the question.
  As we have discussed at the Energy and Commerce Committee and again 
on the House floor today, Mr. Speaker, no one fully understands the 
implications of the underlying legislation. In fact, we have adopted 
amendments that the sponsor indicates aren't really necessary but do 
reinforce what is already in the bill. The scope of what it entails is 
still unclear, however, and the impact it could have on consumers is 
still uncertain.
  Now, Democrats claim their bill permanently forbears from many of the 
heavy-handed regulations that the Federal Communications Commission 
could impose through this government takeover of the internet. It is 
important to note that nothing in the underlying bill would prevent the 
Federal Communications Commission from imposing similar regulations in 
the future or through other provisions in statute.
  Now, my colleagues never could produce the list of 700 forbearances 
they claim the FCC engaged in that they are going to lock in statute 
today. That is what you are voting on, among other things. We never 
could get that list of 700 forbearances.
  We have offered amendments in the committee and in the Rules 
Committee to ensure that consumers are protected and to ensure that the 
Democrats' rhetoric about their bill actually matches the substance. 
These amendments were all rejected on party-line votes in committee.
  What is clear is that the Democrats want a government takeover of the 
internet. They want to open up the floodgates to a Federal, State, and 
local cash grab through taxation and fees that could be put on by local 
governments, State governments, and even the Federal Government.
  Now, they will argue: Oh, no, there is nothing in the underlying 
bill, no, no, no. It does not touch the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
  That might be true. It doesn't have to because the underlying bill 
opens the floodgates to section 201 and section 202 and other 
provisions that would allow local, State, and Federal governments to 
tax the internet. They can't do that today.
  So, again, your vote is pretty simple: tax the internet or don't tax 
the internet.
  Once you classify internet services under the utility-style services, 
tax administrators are going to do what they do best, and that is find 
a way to charge fees and taxes on this category since they understand 
how to get milk from every cow that walks by. Guess who is getting 
milked. It is the consumers.
  So if you have any doubt, Mr. Speaker, just check your monthly phone 
bill. Your internet subscription is the new target. We are seeing all 
kinds of things in this bill. They are doubling, potentially, use of 
fees for the use of some facilities and poles, even altruistic-sounding 
ones on telecommunications relay services and 911.
  But guess what. Just ask New York residents how much of their monthly 
911 charges are being diverted from their 911 call centers. According 
to the Federal Communications Commission's 10th annual report to 
Congress on how States collect and use 911 fees, a staggering 90.35 
percent of the money New Yorkers pay for 911 services gets diverted. 
For my friends in New Jersey, 77.26 percent gets diverted.
  So these tax collectors know how to tax; they just haven't had the 
opportunity to tax the internet, but they may well get it under this 
bill if it were to become law.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is pretty simple. Republicans want to close the 
door on taxation of the internet. Will Democrats join us or not?
  If you vote for the motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, you vote to 
close the tax and freedom door. A ``no'' vote leaves that door wide 
open for taxation of the internet.
  Do you want your consumers to pay higher bills every month for their 
internet service or not?
  Say ``no'' to higher taxes and fees and ``yes'' to this amendment to 
protect those who actually pay the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H3238]]

  

  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, pay 
close attention this. This proposal is completely unnecessary. Let me 
tell you why.
  The bill simply restores the 2015 Open Internet Order that the FCC 
adopted and was upheld by the courts. Nothing in that order could or 
did give the FCC the authority to modify, impair, or supersede Federal 
law. To the contrary, the order said specifically that it did not 
impose new taxes or impact the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
  The Internet Tax Freedom Act is Federal law. Nothing in this order 
allows the FCC to modify, impair, or supersede Federal law.
  This is a complete nonissue, nothing you need to be worried about; 
and, frankly, it is just a last-ditch effort to delay and confuse 
people on net neutrality.
  Now, let's get down to what this bill really does. What this bill 
does, basically, is three things:
  First, the three we all agree on: no blocking, no throttling, and no 
paid prioritization. Republicans and Democrats say we all agree with 
that.
  But, colleagues, that is not the end of the ball game, because we 
have already seen discriminatory practices by ISPs that aren't covered 
by blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
  What my friends over here are saying is, sure, the three things we 
caught them red-handed on that they have already pled guilty to, we are 
not going to allow that anymore, but any new discriminatory behavior, 
any new unjust or unreasonable behavior, we don't want a cop on the 
beat to police that. We don't want to be able to give consumers the 
right to go to the FCC and get relief from that. It is like locking the 
front door and leaving the backdoor wide open.

  Now, let's talk about another thing, too.
  Two years ago, the Trump FCC repealed the Open Internet Order. What 
did it replace it with? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Crickets. They did nothing. 
It is the Wild, Wild West. Let the ISPs do anything they want and 
consumers be damned. That is what they did.
  For 2 years, they could have brought their so-called version of 
light-touch net neutrality to the body. They controlled the House. They 
controlled the Senate. They got a Republican President. They did 
nothing because they don't believe in net neutrality, and they don't 
believe in protecting consumers.
  Well, I have got news for my friends on this side of the aisle: You 
are not in charge here anymore. This is a new day. We didn't come to 
Washington, D.C., to represent companies. We came here to represent the 
American people.
  May I tell my colleagues, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or 
Independents, 86 percent of the American people say they want these 
rules restored.
  Colleagues, this is your first and only chance to tell the American 
people where you stand on net neutrality and whether you believe that 
the FCC should protect consumers. This is your chance to be on the 
right side of history, on the side of the angels, and on the side of 
the American people.
  Let's defeat this motion to recommit and pass this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 216, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--204

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delgado
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--216

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Abraham
     Amodei
     Babin
     Huffman
     McEachin
     Olson
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Sanchez
     Weber (TX)
     Welch

[[Page H3239]]


  


                              {time}  1130

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 190, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 167]

                               YEAS--232

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Abraham
     Amodei
     Babin
     McEachin
     Olson
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Sanchez
     Weber (TX)
     Welch

                              {time}  1144

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed the 
following vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 167.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I was unable to 
vote on Roll Call 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, and 
167. I would include in the Record how I would have voted on each had I 
been present.
  rollcall 157: ``Aye'', rollcall 158: ``Aye'', rollcall 159: ``Aye'', 
rollcall 160: ``Aye'', rollcall 161: ``Aye'', rollcall 162: ``Aye'', 
rollcall 163: ``Aye'', rollcall 164: ``Aye'', rollcall 165: ``Aye'', 
rollcall 166: ``Nay'', and rollcall 167: ``Aye''.

                          ____________________