Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous materials on H.R. 3309.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Assembly, the communications and technology sector is one of the most competitive, innovative, and open sectors of our economy. From fiber optics to 4G wireless service, from the smartphone to the tablet, to the connected TV, this sector has been creating new services and new devices and high quality jobs that come with high-tech innovation and investment.

Now, despite a lackluster economy, wire line, wireless, and cable providers invested $66 billion in broadband infrastructure in 2010. The U.S. is now leading in the cutting-edge wireless technologies. If we want this to continue, though, we need to avoid needless bureaucratic red tape and fix broken processes at the FCC.

Communications and technology companies and the public deserve a more transparent and responsive government agency, and that's exactly what the legislation before us now would accomplish, bringing transparency, bringing accountability to the Federal Communications Commission.

The bill is the fruit of the Energy and Commerce's own open and transparent process. Last May we invited the commissioners of the FCC to testify about improving their processes, and we heard from them about the process problems that have occurred at the agency when it's been headed by chairs from both parties. This is not about this commission. It may be about a prior commission, but it's about a systemic problem.

In June, staff released a discussion draft, and we held a legislative hearing with a diverse panel of experts representing industry, think- tanks, consumer groups, academia, and the States. We listened to what they had to say about the various ideas that were on the table, and we began to work to modify those ideas into something that was workable.

In response to the views presented at the hearings, as well as additional input from stakeholders and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we refined the draft legislation.

Then, in November, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held an open markup of the bill at the subcommittee level. The text is there. Everybody had a chance to see it, everybody had a chance to work on it and amend it.

Earlier this month, the committee marked up the bill, the full committee did, with several bipartisan amendments that continued to improve the FCC processes. So, in large part, the FCC Process Reform Act asked the FCC to go through a process similar to what we just went through in the committee, on the Energy and Commerce Committee, to actually craft this reform legislation. And then we asked the FCC to implement the kinds of reforms that we implemented in this very House to avoid abuses that had taken place in the past.

Now, the FCC regularly issues final decisions without giving the public an opportunity to even review the text that they're considering. I want you to think about that for a moment. They actually issue final decisions without giving the public an opportunity to review the text.

We don't operate that way in the House, at least not anymore. The transition team that Speaker Boehner asked me to chair after the last election adopted a requirement that people have time to read the bill. A 3-day layover provision's in place in this House now so that the public has a chance to read the bills, we have a chance to read the bills, the press corps in the gallery behind us has a chance to read the bills.

What's wrong with asking a Federal agency that writes regulations that affect one of the most dynamic industry in our Nation--what's wrong with asking them to make their text available? We do that in this legislation.

Let me tell you part of the problem here. Last October, the agency introduced more than 100 new documents into the record of its universal service proceeding in the last few days of public comment. Giving the public as few as 2 days to comment on thousands of pages of new data isn't right. These are some of the drafts of documents right here behind me in these binders. Can you imagine, in 2 days, you're supposed to evaluate everything there?

As the president and CEO of the Wireless Association said, there are other elements of H.R. 3309, such as the provision aimed at preventing data dumps--this we would call a data dump--right before an item goes on sunshine, that would represent significant improvement in the regulatory process. Sensible regulatory policies can contribute to the wireless industry's ability to continue serving as a catalyst for innovation, economic growth, and job creation.

So we're trying to get the commission not to do data dumps, to be more transparent. The bill would require the FCC to provide the public a minimum amount of time to review filings and

comment on proposed rules. It is your business, after all. The agency ought to let you have a chance to participate.

Now, unlike executive agencies, these are the ones under the direct command and control of the President of the United States. The FCC never assesses the costs and benefits of regulations. Not required to, so they don't do it always. They can, but they don't.

Now, President Obama issued an Executive order that required executive agencies to actually assess costs and benefits of every single regulation they issue. That's from the President of the United States. And his Executive order requires a more stringent test for major rules. These are the ones affecting the economy in the area of, like, $100 million.

The FCC is not one of those executive agencies. It does not have to follow what the President of the United States tells the other agencies to do because it's an independent agency. So everything the President's asking all the other agencies to do, in this legislation we're saying, FCC, you should do it as well.

Now, President Obama appointed a jobs council. How do we make America more competitive? How do we improve the processes that really drive economic growth?

That jobs council called on this Congress last year to require independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission to actually conduct a cost-benefit analysis before putting more red tape on industry. Go find out what it's going to cost to do what you propose to do.

Now, I want to make it clear. We didn't require the FCC to do the more onerous test that the President requires. The bill is less onerous than his own Executive order because it takes a lighter touch regulation applied to all regulations and applies it to the FCC's major rules. So we ratchet it down.

We're not trying to overburden this agency, but if every other agency of the government can do a cost-benefit analysis and even do a higher, more sophisticated level, what's wrong with asking the Federal Communications Commission to do a light-touch review of costs and benefits?

And you'll hear arguments that this is all brand new stuff, that it's never been done before, can't be done. By golly, we're going to litigate for 15 years. The whole world's going to end.

Look, this uses language right out of President Obama's order. The bill requires for major rules ``a reasoned determination that the benefits of the adopted rule, or the amendment of an existing rule, justify its costs, recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify.'' That's in our language. It's also in the President's language, taking into account alternative forms of regulation and the need to tailor regulation to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives.

Virtually all of that language I just read to you is what the President of the United States has put as a requirement on the Agencies over which he has direct control. We're saying the FCC is under our control as an independent Agency. We're sort of the mother ship for the FCC as the Congress. It's up to us to carry out these provisions. They're good public-policy changes.

The FCC has a substantial backlog that affects small businesses and consumers--4,984 petitions, 3,950 applications that are more than 2 years old. All across the country people have been asking the FCC to take actions, to solve things, to come to decisions. They do it in a clouded, behind-the-curtain sort of way. And you sit on the outside as the public trying to grow jobs, invest and innovate, and you wait. You wait.

Two years is a lifetime for an entrepreneur in the communications marketplace. My wife and I were small business owners for 22 years. We were broadcasters. We've been before the FCC. We're not in that business anymore, been out of it since December of '07. So this isn't about me, except I've witnessed what you have to deal with so I'm trying to fix it here. 1,083 consumer complaints are more than 2 years old. The FCC has done nothing on them.

The bill requires the FCC, therefore, to set shot clocks for decisions so the public will know when to expect an answer. We don't tell them the length of those shot clocks or how they should be done. We're just saying look at your workload and give the public a gauge of when you will reach a decision. You decide the decision. You decide how long those shot clocks will be because you know better in terms of the management flow of your workload what's appropriate, but set some timelines.

In recent years, the FCC has leveraged its authority to review transactions to accomplish unrelated policy goals and insulate its rulemakings from judicial review. Now, what does that mean? It does so through last-minute side deals with applicants that are often not disclosed until just a few days or even hours before the FCC approves a deal. One problem with these voluntary commitments is they're not voluntary.

If you're trying to get the FCC to approve your transfer of license, the FCC, in recent years, has used that approval authority to go way beyond any statutory authority they have to issue rules in an area and they hold you hostage. Outside of the portals, we'd call it extortion, probably. Because what they do is say, look, we only have authority here to decide on transferring your license, that's true. Yeah, we're looking at that. But we want you to go off here and agree to do all these other things--over which we have no authority to mandate that you do them. We could not do a rulemaking if we wanted to because we don't have the authority under the statute to do it. But, by the way--wink, nod, twist your arm--if you don't, and you don't call it voluntary, then you can probably kiss this merger good-bye.

I don't think that's an appropriate role for the Federal Government. Nobody in this Chamber should support that kind of activity; and yet if you oppose this bill, in effect you're supporting that activity.

Now, I know there are some companies out there who aren't real wild about this because they see this as an ability to affect their competitors. Because they say, oh, that's great, we'll twist them at the FCC and we'll force them to do things the FCC couldn't force them to do on their own absent a merger or condition outside of their regulatory and legal authorities, and we'll get a little edge in the market, we'll put our finger on the scale. That's what happens. That should stop.

Some argue we should not treat the FCC differently from other Agencies. Well, in effect, that's what's happening today. Every other Agency is being directed by the President of the United States to do these things we're directing it to do through this legislation. But because it is different, it is an independent Agency, none of what the President is suggesting can be applied to the independent Agency.

Now, they say, well, we're going to do this on our own. Well, they may. And, frankly, the chairman of the FCC right now, Julius Genachowski--I've spent a lot of time talking to him--he has done some really excellent reforms. But the day he leaves and a new chairman comes in, all those could be wiped out. I think this needs to be in statute so we have good processes and procedures going forward, regardless of who controls what around the FCC in the future.

The FCC does act differently. Now, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, is a similar independent Agency, but it doesn't operate this way. It actually puts the text of its proposed rules out for the public to see before it votes on it. It actually builds its case before it makes its decision.

We have an issue going on right now where I've asked the FCC to give me the document they actually voted on as part of this effort on the Universal Service Fund rewrite versus what came out the back end when they were finished weeks later: 751 pages of regulations. They won't give me documents. You see, it changed behind the curtain. They circulate it around in private. They edit it. They've issued their press release and said, here's what we're doing, and then they change it. And then you wait. So the public doesn't have a chance to see what they're actually considering until it's too late and it's final. I think that's wrong.

Both sides of the aisle are for institutional reform at the FCC. Former White House adviser Philip Weiser said

that the agency ``is in dire need of institutional reform.'' State commissioners have been calling for the reform of the FCC rulemaking process for years. In fact, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners--these are the people who are looking out for the ratepayers and the consumers; that is their job--endorses several provisions of this bill, including the actual language of the proposed rule be published for comment; specify a 60-day comment cycle; mandate that all commissioners have adequate time to review any draft decision before voting on it; and on and on. This is good, solid government reform legislation.

It does not protect the status quo. It does not say to the FCC, keep doing what you're doing, you're doing it great. Because some of us came here to change how the Federal Government operates in Washington to open up the process and make it more accountable and transparent. That's what this legislation does.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the original cosponsor of this legislation, Mr. Kinzinger.

Before I yield to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, I just want to make a couple of corrections here to at least explain things.

The Federal Communications Commission would still have the public interest standard that it has today to deny a transfer if it's not in the public interest. We don't take that away. We don't take that away.

And on interoperability, the ranking member talked about this interoperability standard the Commission is now taking up. Ironically, that actually was first raised as part of a request by some to include in the AT&T-Qualcomm merger. Instead, the Commission actually did the right thing. It, in effect, is doing a notice of inquiry. It says, Before we do draft rules, let's go out and survey the marketplace and find out what the issues are. Then the next logical step is to come back with a notice of proposed rulemaking, i.e., the draft rules. This is what we are suggesting occur as regular practice as a result of this legislation.

Now I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the distinguished vice chair of the subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

If the gentleman would yield, the only comment I would make is, we did have hearings on this legislation.

We can easily explain the bill. We know what's in it. We've had a lot of work on it. We've done public hearings. We've listened to people. We've modified it to accommodate some of the great suggestions we have. We have bipartisan pieces in this bill. And the Commission still has the authority to deny transfers of broadcast license. They just can't go outside of their statutory authority to promulgate rules and kind of grab other issues and force people to do things that they couldn't do under their statutory authority.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from New Hampshire, I just want to point out that we're not quite understanding the bill here on the other side because we do allow the FCC to maintain flexibility where necessary. The bill only requires the Notice of Inquiry on new rulemakings. The requirement does not apply to deregulatory rulemakings. And the FCC may waive the Notice of Inquiry in emergencies or where conducting both a Notice of Inquiry and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be unfeasible.

So we tried to put some balance in here. But what's wrong with having the FCC, even in that case as raised by Mr. Doyle, take 60 days? They can decide how long this is and go out survey the market and say what effect and what are the issues and then come back and then they write their rules. It's like us having a hearing. This isn't a burdensome requirement.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Chairman, I've never heard a finer defense of a broken bureaucratic process than I've just heard.

Let me point out that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners--now, these are the folks who stand up for consumers and ratepayers--again, support many of the proposals in this bill. Specifically, they point out that the minimum 60-day comment cycle is good, the mandate that all commissioners have adequate time to review any draft decision before voting on it is good, and to require the actual language of a proposed rule to be published for comment is a good idea.

Again, the President's own Executive orders ask for these things in many cases to be done to the other Agencies, but he can't do it to this one. It's our job to do it here and to fix, reform, and drive for accountability and transparency against those who defend the bureaucracy as broken as it is.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, an extraordinary member of our subcommittee, Mrs. Blackburn.

May I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished former chairman of the committee, my friend, Mr. Barton.

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Given the limited amount of time we have, I will reserve as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the Chairman.

I appreciate the debate we've had today. I think it's been helpful. It hasn't always been enlightening, but it's been helpful.

Again, I would point out that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners praises what we're doing in this bill and the points of requiring actual language to be available for people to see.

All we're doing here is telling the FCC to operate like these other Agencies have been asked to operate by the President's jobs council and by the President's Executive order, but do so in a public and transparent way so that those who have business before the Commission know what the Commission is going to vote on before it votes or rewrites it and then puts it out later. Go out and survey the marketplace, decide if there's a harm, do a notice of inquiry, and get input like we do in hearings here, Mr. Chairman, and then propose rules and put those texts out there of those rules and let the public see.

The great defenders of the bureaucracy, my friends, some of them on the other side of the aisle, say, Oh, you can't change anything in Washington.

That's what we've heard for 40 years. Some of us came here to change Washington for the better. We did it when we changed the rules of the House at the beginning of this session to make our procedures more open and transparent.

My friends on the other side of the aisle were part of the effort that crammed a 2,000-page bill through here with no amendments allowed on the floor, one of which is being argued today across the street at the Supreme Court. The Republicans were denied the opportunity to offer a single amendment on the health care takeover bill on the House floor. They were denied every single amendment when these bills would come to the floor at thousands of pages. We've changed how the House operates so that can't happen again.

This bill is here under a modified open rule. The minority has 10 amendments on the floor. We had open markups in subcommittee and full committee.

What we're saying is we are here as Republicans to change Washington for the better. This bill does that. I urge your support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I share the gentleman's concerns that he raised. A lot of people do not understand that, especially in the area of unlicensed spectrum, you don't have a right to a protective communication. And certainly, in the analog world, you can listen in. We all know that from CB radios and things of that nature and family networks--you hear other people talking. This is an issue of concern, certainly, because all of us want to protect our families, those of us who have children. Mine now much older than that at nearly 22.

But this is certainly an issue, and I appreciate the gentleman raising it. I know he has legislation, although I would say this is the wrong vehicle for that because this is an FCC process reform bill, not a labeling bill, and the FCC does not use the phrase ``baby monitor'' in any of its rules, so, in effect, this labeling requirement may never take effect anyway.

And if the labeling requirement does take effect, it may cause some consumer confusion because you'd treat all analog monitors, perhaps, as unsafe and digital monitors as safe, even if that's not true for a particular brand of baby monitor.

So I oppose this amendment, and would encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I don't rise in opposition to disclosure. I think it's a good thing if it's done in the proper venue in the proper way. And that's not on this particular bill.

A similar amendment was brought before the full committee and rejected by the full committee. It has since been rewritten. It's better than what came before the full committee, and I commend my friend from California for that. But the way that this is written, I believe that it has lots of unintended consequences that can be difficult and doesn't accomplish what she's trying to accomplish in an effective way.

For example, my colleagues in the Chamber, you all would have to disclose, when you go to inquire about the purchase of time now in radio, TV, or satellite, your $10,000 donors. So any PAC that gave you $10,000 in the last 2 years would have to be listed. Now, my colleague from California, that would be like Abbott Labs and Google that gave you 10, and I've got some that gave me 10. You'd have to do that and disclose. You wouldn't have to do money you got from others.

But here's the deal, because I looked this up last night about one in the morning. I couldn't sleep, I was on west coast time, and so I went to the site where this stuff is disclosed--for us, that's the Federal Election Commission site. So I could easily find all the documentation for my dear friend--I just happened to go to her contribution history for last year. And only $30,000 of the $296,817 that she got from PACs would be disclosed as a result of this, which is about 10 percent. But she was able to have another $400,000, or thereabouts, from individuals. So you're really down to only seeing a tiny little window of about 5 percent, or less, that would be disclosed in the public file of a broadcast, satellite, or cable operator, or radio, which, by the way, is all on paper, at least for now, and not online. I was able to ferret out this information online last night, one in the morning, or thereabouts.

The other thing it does, I think it draws in every candidate in America the way this is listed. Because when you read the actual language of the amendment, it talks about political programming. And it defines it as meaning ``programming that communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance.''

So I'm thinking about a city that's having a fight with the Federal Government over some new Federal regulation. That would be an issue of national importance; or if in a local community they were fighting about something, again, that, I don't know, Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights. That would be an issue of national importance. Further, the language talks about a legally qualified candidate for public office. So that would seem to be any candidate for public office at any level.

So then you have public broadcasting that could be pulled into this because they have people that underwrite programming that deals with issues of national importance. So could that be that every public broadcaster would have to disclose somehow everybody that's paying for that programming?

Then you have the creative minds of the people who try to hide from disclosure. This would be real simple under this amendment because it says the look-back period is back to the last Federal general election. Whatever donors you've had at $10,000 would have to be reported before you could inquire about buying time and purchasing time. Well, it's not a reach to think that these clever little rascals out there would simply create a new committee every time they wanted to buy time. That's easy to do. They've got lots of money; they've got lots of attorneys. They just create the committee to attack Anna Eshoo, 2012. And it has no prior donors from the 2 years, so they escape this. And who among us here thinks that they won't do that?

So I don't think the amendment is written to accomplish the goal, and the goal is best achieved and accomplished through the Federal Election Commission, not the Federal Communications Commission. So we're about two letters off. I think it really raises a host of issues that are unintended consequences and should be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Diaz-Balart, I have an amendment I am going to offer.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the course of the debate today on the floor we'll have amendments offered by Republicans and Democrats, a total of potentially 10. This is one offered by my colleague from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), which we will be supportive of. There will be at least one amendment on the other side we will be supportive of as well.

This one will require the FCC to make additional disclosures on its Web site and in its annual budget regarding its processing of Freedom of Information Act requests. I think this does fall

in the category of reforming how the FCC operates in a positive way. It would increase the Agency's transparency with regard to how it complies with Freedom of Information Act requests. Additional disclosure and transparency is a good thing, and the burdens on the FCC are clearly modest, completely.

So I would urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

This amendment would exempt from procedural reforms any FCC actions with regard to broadband access in rural areas. Now, I know the gentleman talked about representing a large rural district. My district in eastern Oregon is larger than his State of New York. It is 70,000 square miles. In fact, it's bigger than any State this side of the Mississippi River, I'm told.

This is my bill. I am an advocate for it because, in many respects, it's bad process at the FCC that harms those least able to afford big high-rise towers of lawyers to come and oversee the FCC. That's why we need a more open and transparent process. This would exempt the FCC from using good process when reforming the Universal Service Fund, for example.

I know the gentleman is fairly new here, but he may not have caught the part about the FCC doing a data dump in the final hours before they promulgated their rule on the Universal Service Fund, which meant it was very difficult, if not impossible, for anybody who really cared deeply about the build-out of broadband or of the future of the USF to go through literally thousands of pages. I used these earlier today in the debate on the underlying bill. We have binders and binders and binders of the actual documents that they dumped at the last minute. It's just not the way to do the public's business.

So I understand what the gentleman is saying. Mr. Terry, who is the sponsor of this bill, is a long-time advocate of rural broadband build- out, as am I, which is part of what we are hoping to accomplish in other legislation as well that has become law. The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, the voice of rural carriers--the very people you're trying to help and genuinely so with your amendment--actually supports the underlying bill. Surely they don't think it will slow down rural broadband deployment.

So I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to rural broadband build- out. I think his amendment actually goes in the wrong direction in that it reduces transparency, accountability, and access for the very people we're trying to help.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for working with this side of the aisle. You have been terrific and so have your staff as we worked through this.

This wasn't a surprise amendment by any means. We were able to sit down and work through it. We share your concern fully, and we are fully supportive of your amendment. And I thank you for raising this issue.

As a former radio broadcaster, having been involved in some emergencies--not hurricanes, clearly, in Oregon--but this is important. So we do support it. And again, I thank you for working with us in a bipartisan spirit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to the legislation that is going to be considered next week.

I would note that he talks about the highway bill, the infrastructure bill that is pending. Obviously, we had expected to consider that bill on the House floor. On our side, at least, our expectation was that it was going to be considered a number of weeks ago. It has not come to the floor here. As I understand it, we are now talking about an extension of some period of time. We are concerned that you rightfully, personally and as a party, made it very clear that certainty was an important aspect of growing our economy. That's a proposition on which I agree. I think you are absolutely right. I think that we need to create certainty and, clearly, we need to create jobs.

I said this morning, Mr. Leader, to the press--and I'm sure you get it as well--that the public says to me: When are you guys going to start working together? When are you going to get something done in a bipartisan way?

The Senate has done that, I will say to my friend. The Senate has done it in an overwhelming fashion. They had 74--it would have been 75, but Mr. Lautenberg was absent but was for the bill. So 75 percent of the Senate, three-quarters of the Senate voted for what was a very bipartisan bill. And, as a matter of fact, half the Senate Republicans essentially voted for that bill.

As you know, it had a technical flaw in the bill in that it had revenues which need to be initiated in the House of Representatives. Representative Tim Bishop of New York has introduced the Senate bill, which has overwhelming support in the United States Senate and, very frankly, in my view, would have at least 218 votes in this House if it were put on the floor.

The Speaker has said in the past that he is committed to letting the House work its will, obviously referring to the open amendments process. But if a bill doesn't come to the floor, we have no opportunity either to amend or to vote. That's been one of our problems, of course, with the jobs bill that the President proposed that we had hoped would have been brought to the floor which has not been to the floor.

But I ask my friend, rather than continue to delay--and both sides have done that on the highway bill--to give that confidence, of which you have spoken and others on your side of the aisle have spoken I think absolutely correctly, in order to give the confidence that we can, in fact, act, that we can work in a bipartisan fashion, I would ask my friend whether or not he, as the majority leader, would be prepared to bring the Bishop bill to the floor, which, again, is the Senate bill, supported by 75 Members of the United States Senate, half of the Republican caucus in the Senate, and which will give some degree of certainty for a highway program which clearly is also a jobs bill and will have an impact on almost 2 million jobs and maybe another million jobs along the way.

We think that's the way that would be good for our country to proceed, and it would send a message--because I think it would get bipartisan support if you brought it to the floor--that it would send a good message to the country that, yes, from time to time, we can work together. And, very frankly, Mr. Leader, if we did that, it would be consistent with every transportation bill that we have passed since 1956 under Dwight Eisenhower, where we worked together in a bipartisan fashion. This is the first time that I have experienced a partisan divide--I mean, people have had differences of opinion, but a partisan divide on the highway bill.

As you know, Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe came together to agree. I think that's a pretty broad ideological spectrum of the United States Senate. They came together, they agreed, and they led the effort to pass that bipartisan bill.

I would very much hope that, Mr. Majority Leader, that you could bring that bill to the floor and see whether or not, in fact, it could pass. I think that would be good for the country.

And I yield to my friend for his comments.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. But I will say again to the gentleman, we've been down this path before. We've been down this path before where the Senate was able to reach a bipartisan agreement on legislation very important to jobs, to the economy, and to the confidence of America.

That bipartisan piece of legislation would have enjoyed the support, I think, of certainly the overwhelming majority, almost the unanimous support on our side on a bipartisan agreement. I don't mean a Democratic proposal from the Senate, but a bipartisan agreement that came from the Senate. That dealt, of course, with payroll taxes and extending those, and ultimately we did that. We took that bill.

But I would say to my friend that the Speaker indicated he wanted a bill on this floor. I've been asking you for approximately a month now if it was going to come to the floor. That bill hasn't come to the floor. We all know it hasn't come to the floor because there's very substantial disagreement within your party about that bill. The papers report that. Everybody talks about it. We understand that.

I say to my friend that he and I do have a disagreement. I think it would enjoy bipartisan support on this floor if you brought the Bishop bill, the Senate bipartisan bill, to the floor. But the only way we're really going to be able to find that out--it's not by me saying, I think it would and you saying, I think it wouldn't. There's a very easy way to see whether it would, and that is to bring it to the floor next week.

I don't think there is anybody, hopefully, that wants to disrupt and have literally hundreds of thousands of people thrown out of work or not have opportunities for work. We know the construction trades in particular have been very badly hit by the lack of construction that's going on.

You can have your opinion and I can have my opinion, but there is a way to determine whether or not, in fact, we can get bipartisan agreement; and that is, as I said, and as the Speaker has indicated, let the House work its will. The only way the House can work its will-- having been majority leader--is for the majority leader to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote. Then you may be right, I may be right, but we will know and it won't have to be speculation. We will know.

If I'm right and we do pass that bill, then next week, before March 31, before the expiration of the current highway authorization, we can send a bill to the President of the United States, and he will sign the Senate bill. We don't know that he will sign a bill that's still languishing in your committee because we haven't seen the final parameters of that bill because it is obviously pretty controversial on your side of the aisle.

Again, if you want certainty, we have an opportunity for certainty. We have an opportunity with a bipartisan bill that the Senate has passed. I don't know why we're rejecting that bipartisanship. The gentleman says, well, this is a unique economic time. He's right. It seems to me that's a greater argument for trying to embrace a bipartisan agreement and move forward with giving certainty to the construction industry, to States, to municipalities, and to counties on what is going to be available to them to plan and to pursue infrastructure projects critical to commerce and to their communities.

I regret that the gentleman has indicated that's not an option that he will consider, but a short-term extension seems to be the continuation of uncertainty, not the allaying of uncertainty. I don't know whether the gentleman wants to make another comment on that or not.

Well, I won't pursue it any further, Mr. Leader, but you've been unable to get agreement within your party on this side of the Capitol for well over a month. I hope you can get there. I would hope you would get there in a bipartisan fashion so that Mr. Rahall and Mr. Mica could agree on a bill, which has been my experience in the 31 years I've been here. It's not my experience this year. That hasn't happened. But almost invariably--and I think for the years you've been here, you've experienced that as well.

Let me ask you now with respect to the budget. Do you expect the budget to come to the floor? You indicated that. If so, would that be Wednesday?

Normally, as you know, we've had alternatives made in order. We, of course, want to make in order an amendment which will guarantee that Medicare will be available to our seniors and that we will not decimate Medicaid, which we think is appropriate for our seniors. We also want to make sure that we have revenues that can sustain health care for seniors, education for kids, help for our communities.

Will the gentleman be able to tell me whether or not, in fact, alternatives will be made in order by the Rules Committee that would be offered either by the minority ranking member of the committee and/or others as historically has been the case?

Was there a bipartisan vote in the committee on that? I thought it was a totally partisan vote in the committee. Was I incorrect?

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

The last thing I would ask the gentleman: Am I correct that the agreement that was reached between our parties, which led to the passage of the Budget Control Act in a bipartisan fashion, does not reflect the substance of that agreement as it relates to the discretionary spending number for fiscal year 2013? Senator McConnell is quoted, as you know, as saying that that was an agreement that was reached and that he expected it to be pursued.

I want to make it clear that he was not referring to the action of the Budget Committee, but he was referring to the agreement on the discretionary number.

Am I correct that the agreement that was reached, in order to get a bipartisan vote on the Budget Control Act, which we passed, which made sure that this country did not default on its debts for the first time in history, am I correct that that number is not the number that is reflected in the budget?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, but I will tell the gentleman that if we're going to have negotiations, and we have one number and you have another number, and we agree on a number, and then we pass a bill which reflects that number, put it in law--it doesn't say it's a cap; it says that will be the number. As we pass the budget, we said that will be the number. Now this is the law. And as was observed by others on the other side of the Capitol, but I will observe it here as well, if we're going to have those kinds of negotiations, it's sort of like the guy who comes up to you and says, look, I've got something to sell you, do you want to buy it? And you say, yes, let's negotiate on price. And you come to a price of $100. And then you come to settle, and the guy says, well, that was my top number. I'm going to give you $92 for that item. You don't have a meeting of the minds as a contract requires.

Very frankly, nobody on our side, and frankly I don't think anybody on your side that negotiated the deal--I don't mean that didn't vote for it--and as a matter of fact, I know for a fact the Speaker, and I believe yourself, have been quoted that that was the number and we ought to stick with it. Clearly, Mr. Rogers believes that's the number that was agreed to.

Now, we're not going to be able to agree on things if all of a sudden it becomes, well, that was a notional thing that we did, not an agreement. A lot of our people voted on that to make sure, A, we didn't go into default as a country, and, B, that was not the number we wanted. It clearly was not the number your side wanted. But it was a number we agreed upon. And it seems to me that if we're going to try to keep faith with one another and with the law that we passed that we should stick with what we agreed to.

I understand that we want to bring the budget deficit down. As a matter of fact, on this side of the aisle, I've made those comments, and I've been criticized by some on my side, as you well know. Yes, we do need to get a handle on the budget. We're going to have a real debate on the deficit and debt, and I've been working very hard on that. We're going to have a debate, a fulsome debate, hopefully, on whether or not your budget does that. We've had disagreements all the years I've been here on that, and performance has not reflected, from my standpoint, that the representations made have always worked out, perhaps on either side.

But I regret, I regret deeply, Mr. Majority Leader, that we've reached an agreement, and based upon that agreement, this House took an action, it took a bipartisan action, and it passed a piece of legislation that was critically important to make sure that America did not go into default. And now we see 7 months later, crossed fingers, well, we really didn't mean that, it was a cap. Nobody on our side-- there was no mention in the law nor was there any mention in the negotiations that that was a cap, not a number.

Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield to my friend.

I look forward to next week debating how we bring that deficit down, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3309.

Essentially, this bill guts the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, by requiring new onerous process requirements which will result in an Agency that's less effective, less agile, and less transparent, the opposite direction, I think, of where we all want to go.

As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, I want to thank the chairman for the work that he has done with us. He has always been very respectful, and the process I think has been a good one.

Democrats support modernizing the FCC because we want to enable the Agency to operate with increased openness and transparency, as I said. But, unfortunately, the bill doesn't accomplish these goals. Over the past year, our subcommittee has heard from countless industry representatives, administrative law experts, and public interest advocates; but there aren't any public interest advocates that support this bill, which I think in and of itself is instructive.

Amongst those experts the chairman mentioned is Phil Weiser, dean of the University of Colorado Law School, who is often cited and who has implied that adopting some of his proposed reforms is the way to go; but Dean Weiser tells us ``passing this law would be a grave mistake.''

Yet, despite the feedback of a bipartisan group of administrative law experts who suggested that this legislation could tie up the FCC in 15 years of litigation--that's a real job creator for lawyers--the House is going to vote today on this, on a bill which requires unique statutory mandates that apply only to the FCC, thus altering the way in which the FCC reviews transactions and exposing the Agency to new litigation risks.

H.R. 3309 mandates that the FCC undertake a cost-benefit analysis of any rule with ``economically significant impact.'' This requirement ignores the fact that the FCC already takes into account the impact of its rules on small businesses. Then to add insult to injury, the CBO estimates that, if enacted, H.R. 3309 would cost $26 million and require the agency to hire an additional 20 employees to handle the new rulemaking, reporting, and analysis activities required under the bill.

The chairman has said, well, it's a fee-driven agency. Fees from businesses? Fees from anywhere. It's still going to cost $26 million more and will add more to the bureaucracy that I think the majority really doesn't have much affection for. For nearly 80 years, the FCC has operated as an independent agency, responsible for regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. By most accounts, the FCC continues to innovate and implement reforms. The chairman was very gracious to outline what Chairman Genachowski has done under his leadership, including removing 120 obsolete regulations, drastically reducing the number of pending applications, and taking steps to increase transparency and stakeholder participation.

So, for all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that H.R. 3309 is the solution, and that's why I am urging my colleagues to oppose this legislation even though there are some parts of it that I support. We need to ensure that the FCC's ability remains to protect consumers and to ensure a competitive marketplace in the years to come.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, earlier the chairman of the subcommittee said that the bill doesn't change the public interest standard for reviewing mergers. That simply is not the case. The bill does change it. It alters the ability of the FCC to impose conditions for the public interest, which is a very serious issue.

I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee and dean of the House of Representatives.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time we have remaining.

Thank you.

At this time, I yield 4 minutes to a very distinguished and valued member of the subcommittee, Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the man that I call Mr. Telecommunications, the real expert in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to use some of our remaining time on this side to respond to several points that have been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

First, while the majority argues that H.R. 3309 is only a ``light touch'' in making sure that the FCC follows the Obama Executive order on cost-benefit analysis, they failed to mention that such cost-benefit review is not judicially reviewable. That's a very important fact here.

The Executive order states that it's ``not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable, at law, or in equity by any party against the United States.''

H.R. 3309, therefore, would create another avenue for appeal and litigation by corporate interests that oppose the FCC's efforts to take actions in the public interest, and no other Federal Agency would be subjected to such challenges. That's number one. That speaks to, I think, the public interest which, I think, is at the heart of what the FCC's responsibilities are.

Second, Mr. Gingrey mentioned the shot clocks. There are 73 types of proceedings the FCC must consider, and each item can be, as we all know and anyone that is tuned in and listening to this knows, can be very complex. No wonder CBO estimated that H.R. 3309 would require the hiring of 20 additional employees.

Thirdly, as the majority placed in the Record those that support the bill--even Mr. Markey spoke of some of the large telecommunication companies--I think it's important to set down for the record who opposes the bill and what they have to say about it.

Bruce Gottlieb in the National Journal:

Layering new procedural requirements on top of existing

ones would effectively halt the creation of nearly any

contentious new FCC rules--in other words, achieve a result

more or less like what Texas Governor Rick Perry had in mind

for the Commerce and Education Departments.

Susan Crawford in Wired Magazine:

Although the bill's proponents say they aim to make things

work more quickly at the FCC, the legislation will have the

opposite effect: it will make it very difficult for the FCC

to deal with any of the real-time telecom problems the

country faces. What the Republicans seem to want, at bottom,

is to grant the giant companies that sell us basic

communications capacity--an essential utility for the 21st

century--the ability to throw sand in the works at every

opportunity.

From Philip Weiser, the dean at the University of Colorado Law School:

I am against passing this bill, which would give rise to

unfortunate and unintended consequences that would undermine

the FCC's future effectiveness without providing any real

benefits.

From the Consumers Union:

The bill would require the FCC to adopt rules as long as

they do not impose an additional burden on industry. The bill

limits the FCC's ability to consider the public interest and

protect consumers when considering mergers.

Mr. Chairman, this is no small item.

Then the Public Interest Groups Coalition letter of February 9 of this year:

These bills would severely hinder the FCC's ability to

carry out its congressional mandate to promote competition,

innovation, and the availability of communication services.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time we have left on our side.

I will reserve that time.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, as I don't have anymore speakers on the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I seek to offer the amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor this afternoon to offer an amendment to this bill that probably, for most people, as they were tuned in and listening to the discussion and the debate of the bill, may not have gotten too excited about it because it deals with the innards of an agency. But this amendment, I think, is probably one of the most important parts of the bill, and I'm very pleased that the Rules Committee found it in order.

This amendment goes to the heart of our democracy, and it's all about disclosure. We have the opportunity today to secure disclosure in political reporting for the voting public.

There's something very sick about our system today. People across the country are deeply and profoundly upset about the undisclosed sums of money that are being poured over and through our political system. And when that happens, it goes right to the heart of democracy.

Why? Because it's undisclosed. We do not know who is contributing. We don't know how much they're contributing. We don't even know if foreign countries are involved in this.

So this is really a very simple amendment. It's an amendment that adheres to the same principles that many of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, have supported before, and it works like this: If an organization buys political advertising time on broadcast television, on radio, on cable, or on satellite, they would be required to disclose their large donors, those who give $10,000 or more to air the ad.

There is today, in statute, section 315 of the Communications Act-- and it's been in place since 2002--that covers national legislative issues of public importance. It also covers legally qualified candidates, or any election to Federal office. So there's something already in place. The only thing that's being added to this is that if you're going to buy time, $10,000 or more, that you are required to disclose and name who the donors are, who's contributing that money.

I think that this is very important. We are a democracy. We're not a plutocracy. What I hear over and over and over and over again from my constituents is the damage that Citizens United, the case that the Supreme Court rendered the decision--I think a disastrous one--2 years ago. We have the jurisdiction at the Energy and Commerce Committee and this subcommittee; it is within our jurisdiction to take this up in this bill.

Now, there is something else. Some people have said that this is burdensome--burdensome for broadcasters, burdensome for those that broadcast

television, burdensome to radio, burdensome to cable, burdensome to satellite. They're not the ones that have to disclose, only those that buy the time.

And the files exist today. There is one file, one file only--now, there are other files for other responsibilities, but there's only one for political ads. Is America and our democracy not worth requiring those that want to buy the political ads to disclose who they are above $10,000? And that's it. So the law is already in place since 2002. The file is already there. There is no burden to the broadcasters, radio, TV, satellite, cable, as I said, but simply to report.

Now, there are those that say that that would be burdensome, that that would be burdensome as well. My question is, How heavy a burden is it? How heavy of a burden, how heavy of a lift is it to report and disclose to the American people? The American people have a right to know; and once they know disclosure is a disinfectant, they will make up their own minds.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, obviously, my colleagues know that I'm a strong proponent of openness and transparency rules in government. I'm concerned about this amendment because it seems as if it would apply special Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requirements on one agency alone.

As with the underlying bill, I am concerned that this would create confusion and inconsistency.

Most frankly, I also question what the problem is that we're addressing here. Just 2 weeks ago, Chairman Issa, the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over FOIA matters, issued a report in which he gave an A grade for FOIA compliance relative to the FCC. It is also my understanding that the FCC is already publishing on its Web site logs for tracking, for responding to, and for managing FOIA requests. So it's a little confusing given the grade that Chairman Issa issued relative to the FCC and FOIA requests and relative to the issues that I raised.

So I think, perhaps, that the amendment may be redundant or simply not needed at all. Those are my observations, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 595 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012.

The rule makes 10 of the 11 amendments submitted to the committee in order. Of these, eight are Democrat-sponsored amendments and two are Republican-sponsored amendments.

As noted by the subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Eshoo, during the Rules Committee meeting on this last night, H.R. 3309 has come to the floor under regular order. The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held an oversight hearing and subsequently a legislative hearing on Federal Communications Commission process reform.

The subcommittee then circulated a discussion draft before holding an open markup and favorably reporting the bill to the full committee on November 16, 2011. On March 6, 2012, the full committee ordered the bill favorably reported to the House.

In 2010, the communications and technology industry invested $66 billion to deploy broadband infrastructure, $3 billion more than in 2009. New products and services are innovated by this sector on an almost daily basis. With the innovation come high-quality jobs and marked improvements for every American's quality of life.

As a result, all efforts should be made to avoid stalling this important economic engine. The FCC should strive to be the most open and transparent agency in the Federal Government, and any intervention into the marketplace should be the result of rigorous analysis demonstrating the need for government regulation.

The Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act would change the process the FCC must follow in issuing regulations and limit the

agency's ability to set conditions on transactions relating to corporate mergers and acquisitions.

The legislation would require the FCC to be more transparent and methodical in determining whether to intervene in the communications marketplace in dealing with customers and regulated parties, and in reviewing transactions.

Customers, small businesses, and outside-the-beltway stakeholders, in particular, do not have the regulatory lawyers needed for rush review of proceedings. The only way to get their input is to give them time to provide feedback on well-delineated proposals.

Before it starts intervening, the FCC should make sure it has a full understanding of the state of competition and current technologies. By requiring the FCC to be more transparent, to find a market failure before proposing regulations, and to conduct cost-benefit analyses before adopting rules, H.R. 3309 helps promote jobs, investment, and innovation in one of the few sectors still firing on all cylinders in this economy.

In particular, the bill prohibits the FCC from coercing parties to accept concessions, such as network neutrality obligations, as a condition of approving their mergers. Such conditions are typically unrelated to the specifics of the transaction and involve requirements the FCC otherwise lacks the policy justification or legal authority to impose. They also chill transactions that might otherwise advance the economy, and impose unnecessary costs on businesses.

The bill requires the FCC to survey the marketplace through a notice of inquiry before proposing new rules that would increase costs for customers and businesses; to establish the specific text of proposed rules before their consideration so the public and industry know what is being considered and have adequate information to provide input, much as House leadership has adopted in the layover requirement for the bills that we now hear on the floor; to identify a market failure or customer harm and conduct a cost-effective analysis before adopting economically significant rules that cost more than $100 million; to set the shot clock and schedules for issuing decisions and to report to Congress on how well it is abiding by them so the public and industry know when issues will be resolved; and to create performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a program that costs more than $100 million.

These proposed process reforms are not radical, nor are they an attempt to cripple the FCC, as some opponents of the legislation have claimed. Instead, this legislation seeks to pull back the curtain on bureaucratic regulation of a sector of our economy that has provided high-tech innovation and investment, and the high-quality jobs that come with it, despite the economic downturn.

So, once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire if the gentleman from Florida has any more speakers because I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time, and will get back to the issue at hand.

This is not necessarily a highway bill, but it does talk about a highway, one which is much faster than the ones we drive on. It is hard to imagine a world without a high-speed wireless Internet service. It is hard to imagine staffers walking down the hallways without some sort of wireless devices that they're communicating with others on, and usually their hands are glued to them.

Communications and technology innovations over the past several years have made us a more connected world. In some instances, the new global connectedness has brought us even closer together, allowing us to share in similarities and differences between our peers in distant cultures. It has given us a chance to marvel at the world's best athletes on the grandest stages, and in some cases it has exposed the atrocities of war, intolerance, and disregard for human life. We want our innovations to continue and our inventors to keep inventing. In the communications and technology fields they have, and they continue to amaze us with new breakthroughs every day.

This bill simply pulls back the curtain on the FCC, the agency charged with regulating the communications sector. It asks them to institute commonsense reforms to better keep the public informed on their actions. It requires the Commission to rigorously

examine the marketplace before intervening; to give increased time for public input and comment; and to increase transparency while approving new rules and amendments. These process reforms are simply good government, and they should be embraced in a nonpartisan fashion.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 595 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting

of the text of the bill (H.R. 14) to reauthorize Federal-aid

highway and highway safety construction programs, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this

resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by the

Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

110th and 111th Congresses.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican

Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United

States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).

Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question

vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not

possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding the time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3309, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act. There may be beneficial provisions in the underlying legislation to make the FCC's processes more transparent and more efficient.

I do suggest that the FCC has made great strides in this regard under the leadership of Chairman Genachowski, and certainly more can be done. But the fact remains that my friends on the other side of the aisle have squandered important opportunities in this process to walk the walk and talk the talk.

Now, last night an amendment was offered by my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, to require FCC disclosure of spending on political advertisements, which was opposed in committee but made in order to go forward today.

Recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the Citizens United case, have opened the door for unlimited spending by wealthy entities aiming to influence the electoral process. These individuals, organizations, and corporations have the financial resources to reach millions of Americans through cable, broadcast television, the radio, and other media.

Unfortunately, Americans do not yet have the right to know who is paying for these efforts. Under current law, Americans have no way of knowing whether an advertisement urging them to vote for a certain candidate or support certain legislation is being done at the behest of someone who stands to make a lot of money from that candidate or the bill.

That's no way to run a country. That's no way to hold an election. And that's no way to run a government.

Since Citizens United, our government is less like a democracy and more like a mystery. I firmly support the Eshoo amendment and ask all of our colleagues to do so. It aims to provide some clues by requiring the disclosure of any individual or corporation that contributes $10,000 or more for the purpose of airing political programming in an election cycle.

This amendment is modeled after the DISCLOSE Act, sponsored by my friend and colleague, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Both these measures educate voters by disclosing who is donating money to influence the electoral process. It is as simple as that: transparency, accountability, and democracy.

Yet some of my Republican colleague friends continue to be baffled as to why the American people will want to know who is trying to influence them. Last night in the Rules Committee, my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) was indicating his motions regarding this; and I said to him what I say to all of our colleagues and to all Americans, that the day somebody shows up with $500, you would be interested to know, if they are opposed to you, who they are.

So the question remains: Why do some Republicans oppose these efforts now?

Madam Speaker, we know full well about some of the biases that some Republicans have in favor of the wealthiest Americans. When they're not trying to eviscerate social safety net programs--as I suggested in the Rules Committee, and in 40 minutes we will be taking up the proposed budget that does just that--to make room for tax cuts for the well off in our society, it appears that Republicans are eager to allow the richest Americans to hijack the electoral process. Because that is what is about to happen, and it is and will be a hijacking.

When vast sums of money are used to influence the democratic process, the voices of those who do not have such resources get drowned out. When that influence is allowed to remain in the shadows, suddenly we find that the wealthiest interests in this country are the ones driving the bus, the train, the plane, and the rest of us do not know where the stops are.

This amendment, along with the DISCLOSE Act and similar efforts, aims to provide Americans with the basics of who is spending how much on what. It does not impose any new obligations on broadcasters or providers; it does not hold broadcasters or providers liable for inaccurate information; and it does not take action with respect to posting this information online. This is a simple disclosure requirement. It benefits all Americans. It is good for our democracy.

Quite frankly, I think that a commendable thing occurs when many of the amendments are made in order. In this particular instance, I'm especially pleased that my colleagues made the Eshoo amendment in order.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I appreciate my colleague for asking. I was hoping that Mr. Bishop from New York would be here, but in light of the fact that he is not, I'm prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If Mr. Bishop does arrive, then perhaps I would use some of my time to yield to him.

We all know that this legislation is never going to pass the Senate, and so this exercise remains just that, an exercise.

Republicans claim to be in favor of reducing the size of government, but this bill will require the FCC to hire 20 additional staff at a cost of $26 million over 5 years just to handle all the additional work created.

Rather than focus on stimulating the economy, funding infrastructure investments, and improving our democracy, my friends on the other side insist on devoting time and energy in a pursuit that is never going to go beyond this Chamber.

Rather than support transparency and our democratic process, my friends on the other side want to shield the best off in our society and corporations from having to disclose their financial influence on the political process. And rather than work with Democrats to craft comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that can pass the House and Senate, Republicans would rather see their partisan bills die than allow a compromise measure to live. I would say that I'm appalled, Madam Speaker, but this kind of thing seems to happen all the time around here.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 14, the House companion to the bipartisan Senate transportation bill and to discuss our proposal, but before that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.