Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 34) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services".

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 34.

Today, colleagues, we are waist deep in the swamp. The American people did not ask for this resolution.

In fact, no company will even put its name behind this effort. Instead, this resolution is the result of an explicit written request from Washington lobbyists. These lobbyists make the bogus claim that having actual protections will confuse consumers and the only way to help clear up this information is to have no rules at all.

No consumer has come forward to support this position. No consumer has said this argument even makes sense.

I challenge every Member of this body at your next townhall meeting to have a show of hands of how many people think it is a good idea to allow your internet service provider to sell their personal information without their permission.

Then after you get that show of hands, ask them how many of them would vote for you if you support allowing corporations to do that.

This resolution is of the swamp and for the swamp and no one else. The rules of this resolution would overturn rules that are simple and make common sense. They don't require much, only three things:

One, internet service providers should ask permission before selling your private internet browsing history, app usage, or other sensitive information;

Two, once they have your information, internet service providers should take reasonable measures to protect it; and

Finally, if the information gets stolen, the company should quickly let you know.

That is it. That is all that is being asked of them.

These modest rules don't stop internet service providers from using data for advertising and profiling or whatever else so long as they ask first.

ISPs have an obligation under these rules not to dive into the personal lives of Americans unless that is what those Americans want. They just need to ask first.

This is particularly true because broadband providers see literally everything you do online, every website you visit, every app, every device, every time. By analyzing your internet usage and browsing history, these companies will know more about you than members of your own family, more than you tell your doctor, more than you know about yourself. Without these rules, these companies don't have to ask before selling all of that information, and they don't have to take reasonable measures to protect that information when they collect it.

Make no mistake about this, colleagues: Anyone who votes for this bill is telling your constituents that they no longer have the freedom to decide how to control their own information. You have given that freedom away to big corporations. More importantly, there aren't rules to fall back on if Congress scraps these.

Critics of the rules argue that the Federal Trade Commission should oversee the privacy protection for broadband providers, but, under current law, they have no authority to do so, and the CRA won't do a thing to fix that. Under a Federal court of appeals case, the FTC has no authority over mobile broadband providers at all.

And to those that say the FCC can evaluate complaints on a case-by- case basis using its statutory authority, the current Chairman--your current Chairman--stated that section 222 cannot be used to protect personal information and that rules are necessary to enforce this statute.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a statement by the FCC Commissioner.

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai

Re TerraCom, Inc. and YourTel America, Inc., Apparent

Liability for Forfeiture, File No. EB-TCD-13-00009175.

A core principle of the American legal system is due

process. The government cannot sanction you for violating the

law unless it has told you what the law is.

In the regulatory context, due process is protected, in

part, through the fair warning rule. Specifically, the D.C.

Circuit has stated that ``[i]n the absence of notice--for

example, where the regulation is not sufficiently clear to

warn a party about what is expected of it--an agency may not

deprive a party of property.'' Thus, an agency cannot at once

invent and enforce a legal obligation.

Yet this is precisely what has happened here. In this case,

there is no pre-existing legal obligation to protect

personally identifiable information (also known as PII) or

notify customers of a PII data breach to enforce. The

Commission has never interpreted the Communications Act to

impose an enforceable duty on carriers to ``employ reasonable

data security practices to protect'' PII. The Commission has

never expounded a duty that carriers notify all consumers of

a data breach of PII. The Commission has never adopted rules

regarding the misappropriation, breach, or unlawful

disclosure of PII. The Commission never identifies in the

entire Notice of Apparent Liability a single rule that has

been violated.

Nevertheless, the Commission asserts that these companies

violated novel legal interpretations and never-adopted rules.

And it seeks to impose a substantial financial penalty. In so

doing, the Commission runs afoul of the fair warning rule. I

cannot support such ``sentence first, verdict afterward''

decision-making.

To the extent that the circumstances giving rise to today's

item merited the Commission's attention, there was a better

(and lawful) path forward. We could have opened a notice-and-

comment rulemaking. This process would have given the public

an opportunity to speak. And in turn, the agency would have

had a chance to formulate clear, well-considered rules--rules

we then could have enforced against anyone who violated them.

Instead, the Commission proposes a forfeiture today that, if

actually imposed, has little chance of surviving judicial

review.

One more thing. The Commission asserts that the base

forfeiture for these violations is nine billion dollars--

that's $9,000,000,000--which is by far the biggest in our

history. It strains credulity to think that Congress intended

such massive potential liability for ``telecommunications

carriers'' but not retailers or banks or insurance companies

or tech companies or cable operators or any of the myriad

other businesses that possess consumers' PII. Nor can I

understand how such liability can be squared with the

Enforcement Bureau's recent consent decrees with these

companies. Under those consent decrees, the companies paid

the Treasury $440,000 and $160,000 for flouting our actual

rules and draining the Universal Service Fund by seeking

Lifeline support multiple times for the same customer.

Consumer protection is a critical component of the agency's

charge to promote the public interest. But any enforcement

action we take in that regard must comport with the law. For

the reasons stated above, I dissent.

Without these protections, there will be no clear rules of the road. At a time when foreign actors like the Russians, the Chinese, and everyone else under the sun are constantly trying to steal our data and compromise our security, it would be irresponsible to roll back the only Federal safeguards we have. I want my colleagues to think long and hard before you give corporations the ability to sell your information without their permission.

Mr. Speaker, I include several articles in the Record by Free Press and the Open Technology Institute opposing the CRA, an op-ed from a current

FTC Commissioner opposing this CRA, and a memorandum from engineers at EFF opposing this CRA.

[From Free Press, May 10, 2016]

Pay-for-Privacy Schemes Put the Most Vulnerable Americans at Risk

(By Sandra Fulton)

The FCC has opened a proceeding on the rules and policies

surrounding privacy rights for broadband service. One

industry practice called into question in that proceeding

could have a devastating impact on our most vulnerable

populations.

Internet service providers charge broadband customers a ton

for Internet access. ISPs are increasingly finding new

revenue streams too, by taking part in the multibillion-

dollar market that's evolved out of selling users' personal

information to online marketers. As the debate around privacy

has heated up, ISPs have tried to placate the public's

growing interest in privacy protections while maintaining

revenues they can get when they auction off their customers'

valuable personal information.

One proposed solution that AT&T has largely ``pioneered''?

Have customers pay to preserve their privacy.

The potential harms and discriminatory implications of this

practice are obvious. It could mean that only people with the

necessary financial means could protect their privacy and

prevent their ISPs from sharing their personal information

with predatory online marketers. The FCC rulemaking

proceeding seeks comments on whether to allow such

``financial inducements'' for the surrender of private

information. If the agency decides not to ban such practices

outright, it wants to know how it should regulate them.

As our lives have moved online, ISPs have gained access to

our most sensitive personal information. Advanced

technologies allow companies to track us invisibly,

collecting and selling data on nearly every detail of what we

do online.

But ISPs don't just stop at knowing what we're doing. The

location tracking that's needed to provide mobile service to

our phones lets the ISPs know when and where we do it too.

And they can figure out the people and organizations we

associate with by looking at who we talk to and which

websites we visit.

As ISPs track their customers, they create comprehensive

dossiers containing sensitive information on each person's

finances, health, age, race, religion and ethnicity. Their

reach is so pervasive that information like a visit to a

website discussing mental health, a search on how to collect

unemployment benefits, or a visit to a church or Planned

Parenthood office could be swept up into their databases.

How do you feel about your ISP selling such a personal

glimpse into your life to online advertisers? Under a pay-

for-privacy scheme, you wouldn't need to worry about it so

long as you could afford to shell out the hush money. But

those who aren't so fortunate would have to relinquish any

control over how their personal data is spread across the

Web.

The FCC raised concerns about this dynamic when it launched

its rulemaking proceeding, noting that such pay-for-privacy

practices might disadvantage low-income people and members of

other vulnerable communities. But it didn't make any specific

recommendations or issue any proposals on how to regulate in

this space.

Long before the FCC launched this inquiry at the end of

March 2016, and even before the agency had clarified its

authority to protect broadband users in the February 2015

Open Internet Order, AT&T's GigaPower broadband service had

become one of the first pay-for-privacy plans on the market.

The AT&T deal allows customers to opt out of some information

sharing if they pay an extra $29 a month or more.

For a struggling family, that could mean choosing between

paying for privacy and paying for groceries or the public

transportation needed to get to work. And while AT&T might be

the first to launch this kind of service, an article in

Fortune notes that other companies are eager to roll out

similar plans.

Under pay-for-privacy models, consumers who are unable to

pay the higher broadband cost will likely see their ISPs

share their data with shadowy online data brokers who use

this information to tailor marketing messages. While

unregulated and unaccountable data brokers are a threat to

everyone's privacy, they're notorious for targeting low-

income communities, people of color and other vulnerable

demographics.

One particularly damning report from the Senate Commerce

Committee offered this glimpse into how these brokers

categorize and label these target audiences:

The Senate committee's report notes, for example, that the

``Hard Times'' category includes people who are ``Older,

down-scale and ethnically diverse singles typically

concentrated in inner-city apartments.''

It continues: ``This is the bottom of the socioeconomic

ladder, the poorest lifestyle segment in the nation. Hard

Times are older singles in poor city neighborhoods. Nearly

three-quarters of the adults are between the ages of 50 and

75; this is an underclass of the working poor and destitute

seniors without family support . . .''

These classifications can influence not just what kinds of

ads people see, but the interest rates they're offered or the

insurance premiums they pay. These targeted communities are

precisely the ones who can't pay extra to shield their

personal information from these dangerous companies.

There may be some argument that if big companies are going

to profit from our data anyway, it's actually good if their

customers get a share of that. The FCC's rulemaking proposal

notes that brickand-mortar stores and websites alike offer

all sorts of ``free'' services, discounts and perks in

exchange for the data they mine from their customers and

users.

But the nature of the broadband market--where users have no

real options when it comes to choosing their providers, and

no way to opt out short of staying offline--makes the

tradeoffs here especially worthy of attention. If users could

get fair value for their data, and if they got a real

discount on broadband and not just a privacy penalty, and if

they were providing truly informed consent with full

knowledge of all the pernicious uses data brokers have for

their information, then maybe we could have a conversation

about the fairness of such schemes. But those are some very

big ifs.

We need better transparency rules for marketers and easy-

to-use disclosures and opt-in mechanisms before we get there.

We also need strong baseline privacy protections guaranteed

for all, including rules that prohibit ISPs from using

discriminatory schemes that jeopardize the rights of their

most vulnerable customers.

We applaud the FCC for taking this crucial first step to

protect privacy from broadband ISPs' overreach and abuse. As

gatekeepers to the Internet, ISPs hold a wealth of

information about their customers, and the Communications Act

commands the FCC to establish strong safeguards for that

private info. But the FCC also must also remember that our

rights are not for sale--and that privacy is not a luxury for

the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friends that, under current law, the FTC has no authority to regulate ISPs and that it was your Commissioner, your current FCC Commissioner, that said that they can't do it under section 222 also, which I have submitted for the record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleague, once again, that the FTC has no authority to regulate ISPs once this bill is implemented; and consumers will not be protected, and their current FCC Commissioner has stated that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that, whether it is nonsensitive information or sensitive information, the ISP should ask for your permission to use it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend, since he acknowledges the court decision does not allow FTC jurisdiction and that he wants to introduce a bill, perhaps the Republicans should have done that first, before scrapping the rules that leave ISPs with no rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I have heard about this last-minute dropping and late at night. Just for the other side's information, after a 7-month rulemaking process, this rule was adopted midday on October 26. So let's get the record straight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that these heavy-handed regulations that he speaks of are simply: ask permission, protect people's data, and tell them if it gets stolen.

That doesn't sound too heavy-handed to me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friends once again that this does not put us on equal footing. The FTC has no power to regulate ISPs under current law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I just remind my friend, you can say it as many times as you want, but the fact of the matter is that, under current law, the FTC has no authority to regulate the FCC, and the FCC Commissioner has said that you cannot do this without a rule in section 222.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our House Democratic leader, the magic minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from a coalition of small ISPs, a coalition of civil rights organizations, the Consumers Union, and an article by Terrell McSweeny all opposing this CRA.

Electronic Frontier Foundation,

San Francisco, CA.

Re Oppose S.J. Res 34--Repeal of FCC Privacy Rules.

Dear U.S. Representatives: We, the undersigned founders,

executives, and employees of ISPs and networking companies,

spend our working lives ensuring that Americans have high-

quality, fast, reliable, and locally provided choices

available when they need to connect to the Internet. One of

the cornerstones of our businesses is respecting the privacy

of our customers, and it is for that primary reason that we

are writing to you today.

We urge Congress to preserve the FCC's Broadband Privacy

Rules and vote down plans to abolish them. If the rules are

repealed, large ISPs across America would resume spying on

their customers, selling their data, and denying them a

practical and informed choice in the matter.

Perhaps if there were a healthy, free, transparent, and

competitive market for Internet services in this country,

consumers could choose not to use those companies' products.

But small ISPs like ours face many structural obstacles, and

many Americans have very limited choices: a monopoly or

duopoly on the wireline side, and a highly consolidated

cellular market dominated by the same wireline firms.

Under those circumstances, the FCC's Broadband Privacy

Rules are the only way that most Americans will retain the

free market choice to browse the Web without being surveilled

by the company they pay for an Internet connection.

Signed,

Sonic, MonkeyBrains, Cruzio Internet, Etheric Networks,

Aeneas Communications, Digital Service Consultants Inc.,

Hoyos Consulting LLC, Om Networks, Motherlode Internet,

Goldrush Internet, Credo Mobile, Andrew Buker (Director of

Infrastructure Services & Research computing, University of

Nebraska at Omaha), Tim Pozar (co-founder, TwoP LLC), Andrew

Gallo (Senior Network Architect for a regional research and

education network), Jim Deleskie (co-founder, Mimir

networks), Randy Carpenter (VP, First Network Group), Kraig

Beahn (CTO, Enguity Technology Corp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my colleague from the class of '94.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this horrible resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, up until now, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed their tax return information. These returns provide a basic level of transparency that helps ensure the public's interest is placed first. The American people deserve the same level of disclosure from this administration. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill that would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) to discuss this proposal and also the important aspects of the underlying bill that need to be responded to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the resolution.

This resolution undermines fundamental privacy for every internet user. You hear my colleague on the other side trying to conflate different things. When your broadband provider can sell your information, and there is no rule prohibiting them from doing so-- effectively that includes all of your browsing history, data entered in forms, everything that you have done on the internet that has absolutely nothing to do with a relationship with a particular content provider or e-commerce company; you can enter information, obviously, for the express purpose of them optimizing your experience or selling you a product--they are then the owners of that information, and you have choice in the marketplace. Whereas, with our broadband providers, most of us don't have a choice. You either sign up for the local cable company or you don't.

Before I discuss the many disastrous facets of this resolution, I also want to point out that this is yet another closed rule. There have been absolutely no open rules that allow Democrats and Republicans to bring forward amendments. No amendments are allowed under this rule here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Sadly, that has become the norm.

The FCC recently took steps to reevaluate their rule. Commissioner Pai even paused their implementation to examine the FCC doing their job.

Now, why would Congress step in and use the CRA authority, a very cumbersome authority, that also prohibits future implementation of similar rules?

In many ways, it hamstrings the agency.

What we are worried about is that, if this bill were to become law, it would essentially be impossible for the FCC to act to protect the privacy of Americans who use broadband ever again. So it is not a matter of a nuance under this rule. If we go through the process of passing a CRA, the FCC wouldn't be able to pass any rule--or if they did, it would be under a legal cloud--to protect the privacy of the American people. That is the danger: that CRAs are effectively permanent.

The second aspect is that the FCC has already established a notice and comment period that allows for comment on the new rules. By going around that, we would avoid government transparency.

So here is what is at stake. On October 27, 2016, after a 6-month rulemaking process that was open to public comment and received comments, the FCC developed a commonsense rule to protect our privacy. The rule that we are talking about undoing basically does three things, which are great.

It requires broadband internet access service providers to obtain opt-in consent before using or sharing sensitive information. Sounds obvious that we would want that. We wouldn't want information that doesn't have an opt-in consent to be sold or used. That includes things like web browsing history or data that is entered on forms.

It would also require broadband providers to use reasonable measures to protect the cybersecurity of our data. Again, of course.

Third, it requires that broadband providers notify consumers in the event of a breach of information. Again, just like we have with credit card companies, we want some kind of affirmative information that is given to consumers that your information may be breached if there is a cybersecurity threat that might do that.

This bill undoes all those things. It says that you don't have to notify people if there is a breach, you don't need to have reasonable measures to protect cybersecurity, and, most importantly, with regard to privacy, it will no longer require opt-in consent before using, sharing, or selling your most intimate personal data that you use on the internet.

Now, look at the implications of this rollback. It is not just a collection of internet data usage, but bulk collection of all of your network traffic. A broadband provider could collect every search, every website visited, every email written and received, every piece of data entered, every article read, see how often you log in and how you use various accounts for all members of your family, including minors, and even your location, sell that information, and use that information without restriction and without opt-in.

Think about what someone can conclude about this information--your political affiliation, preferences, your health.

What could they do with it?

They could charge pricing of goods and services discriminating against you based on your income or your past purchasing behavior. Your sensitive financial information could be used to steer you to higher costs and worse financial products. This rule would literally change how broadband providers have access to your entire personal life. It would make the broadband providers the most valuable part of the internet value chain.

Now, we all want broadband providers to have compensation for the infrastructure costs and a reasonable profit. There is no doubt about that. Those of us who advocate for net neutrality, as I do, or those who advocate for privacy, we want them to have a reasonable return on investment so that we can all have access to broadband. And we have that largely through user fees and subscription fees.

Have you seen your cable bill, Mr. Speaker?

I have seen my cable bill. It ain't cheap anymore. But many families pay for it because it is the best way to have fast access to the internet.

And guess what?

The cable companies are able to justify broadband in many areas.

Again, maybe there are some tweaks, and it would be great if there is a way we could have greater value for rural broadband and have them have an ROI. We would love that. But the answer is not to turn over the keys to the internet and all your personal data to cable companies and say: You own it all. You are more powerful than Amazon, more powerful than Google, more powerful than every consumer site because you own everything that is entered into every one of those and more, and you can sell it and use it as you see fit without restriction, without even requiring that users opt in.

The value conveyance from the content side to the infrastructure side of this bill would be game-changing and game-destroying for the free and open internet. It simply makes no sense.

Look, consumers should have the right to choose with who and how they share their personal information. When it comes to a broadband provider, we simply don't have that choice that you do with consumer websites like Facebook or Google, which are governed under a separate set of laws.

Proponents of this bill are arguing that, because there is not adequate protection somehow in social media and the edge providers here, somehow the standard should be lower for broadband internet services. It makes no sense. In today's day and age, not having internet access is simply not an option for many Americans. To say you can choose not to have broadband, maybe in some places you can pay more for satellite and you might have some reasonably fast download but not upload that may be spotty, maybe you want to use dial-in over your phone. But for most of us--I use broadband. Most of us use broadband through our cable because it is the most cost-effective way to have high-speed internet access, and that is the case for most American families.

So this is not the time to get rid of privacy rules and convey the vast ecosystem that is the internet away from the content and dynamism that exists there to the broadband side. That is absurd.

People can choose not to use social media accounts, can choose what they share, and can choose who to enter contracts with with regard to searches or purchases. Social media is an optional platform that you can choose between many providers, but the broadband access side frequently looks and acts more like a monopoly.

Supporters of this bill also mention how this somehow levels the playing field for broadband providers. What it does is it tilts the playing field entirely in their favor. Internet service providers are a gateway to the internet. They do not own the internet.

The second protection the rule offers is to require reasonable measures be taken to protect the data that they want to collect. Again, we all value cybersecurity and protection of this data. Given the countless incidents of cyber hacking incidents, how can we entertain the idea of rolling back a rule that requires reasonable measures to protect consumer data? What are proponents advocating for? No measures to protect consumer data?

The third important protection under this rule is the consumers whose data has been breached should be notified. Again, that is important. I had my credit card stolen a few years ago and got notified that it was. I used it at another location where it might have been compromised and I received notification. This eliminates that notification from users of broadband. It would do away with that.

I would like to know, as would consumers, if my credit card information was hacked. I want to know if my personal profile or medical records or emails were hacked. If someone is able to attain my children's names, our home address, information about the schools they attend, or the homework they do, I would want to know.

Now, look, this bill moves entirely the wrong direction. It basically seizes the value of the internet from content, from e-commerce, from all of the important dynamism that occurs there and tries to apply that to the broadband side rather than simply find a reasonable way for broadband providers to see a return on investment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the evaluation is as it should be. Again, when infrastructure is laid, we want a reasonable ROI. It is like utility infrastructure or water infrastructure. I would never expect that the world's most valuable companies would be the pipes in the people's homes. The magic of the internet is the content. That is what drives the desire for broadband access. And, of course, there are other ways that people can access the internet, but broadband and cable have a technical advantage on price and speed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

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

It is no surprise that nobody wants to come to the floor and talk in favor of this bill because it is such an awful bill. This bill would allow your broadband provider of internet services to sell all of your personal information.

So, again, the other side is trying to conflate two entirely different things. When you do a transaction within an e-commerce site or search site, you are agreeing to their terms of service, and you are engaging in a discrete transaction, and the information that you enter is subject to their terms of use--completely appropriate. A competitor is only a click away.

Whether there are any monopolistic content providers is a different matter for a different day, and a different Federal agency--the FTC. What we are talking about here is the access piece, the broadband access piece. They actually, through the pipes, get to see all of the information that is entered that you see: every email; all of your credit card information; if you use the internet for any personal medical research, all of your personal medical research; your kids' information, everything your kids and minors in the family do. And what this bill says is: you don't have to require people to opt in to have their information used.

Consumers should be in control of their own information. They shouldn't be forced to sell and give that information to who knows who simply for the price of admission for access to the internet.

Again, we all want there to be a reasonable capital return on infrastructure and on broadband. That is something we can agree on. If there is a case to be made that we can do better in providing an economic return to encourage rural broadband, I am for it. I know many of my colleagues on the other side would be for it. Let's do it.

What we don't want to do in that process is turn over the entire value chain of the internet to the infrastructure and provider side, rather than the dynamic innovative content and e-commerce side.

I would like to read an excerpt from two letters from groups who are opposed to this bill. The first is a coalition of 19 media, justice, consumer protection, civil liberties, and privacy groups.

Their concern that: ``Without these rules, ISPs could use and disclose customer information at will. The result could be extensive harm caused by breaches or misuse of data.''

They remind us that: ``The FCC's order simply restores people's control over their personal information and lets them choose the terms on which ISPs can use it, share it, or sell it.''

Consumers should be in control of their own information.

The second letter is from Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports. They say, in part, that this bill ``would strip consumers of their privacy rights and . . . leave them with no protections at all.''

I include in the Record those two letters, Mr. Speaker.

January 27, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

I also include in the Record an op-ed that I had the opportunity to publish last week on this topic. My piece is entitled ``Why Americans should be worried about their online broadband privacy,'' talking about this very bill that Congress has the tenacity to try to bring to the floor under this rule to force the most personal information pieces of information about every aspect of your internet behavior, and that of your family members, to be given to the broadband provider to do whatever they want with.

[From the Huffington Post, March 22, 2017]

Why Americans Should Be Worried About Their Online, Broadband Privacy

(By Jared Polis)

Over the last couple of months, the dialogue surrounding

government surveillance and consumer privacy has shifted in a

troubling direction. While news outlets are covering

everything from false claims of wiretaps to outlandish claims

of reconnaissance microwaves, Republicans are quietly taking

real and dramatic steps to protect corporate profits at the

cost of your privacy. A few weeks ago, Senator Jeff Flake (R-

Ariz.) and Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) filed

bills in both the House of Representatives and the Senate

that, if passed, will permanently eliminate broadband users'

privacy protections, affecting nearly everyone who uses the

Internet.

The legislation allows broadband providers to access and

sell consumers' information without their permission. As our

gateway to the Internet, Broadband Internet Service

Providers--commonly referred to as ISPs--have access to a

wealth of personal information, from our physical location to

our shopping habits and the medical issues we research--can

reveal potentially sensitive details about our personal

lives.

Every search, every website visited, every article read

online, see how often you log into and use your various

online accounts and even, in some cases, collect your

location. Think about what someone could conclude from this

information about you--your overall health, risk activity,

political affiliation, preferences. What could they do with

that information? Could they change pricing of goods and

services depending on your income and past purchasing

behaviors? Could you face challenges obtaining insurance due

to perceptions on your health or risk behavior based on your

search activity? This rule change will literally allow

broadband providers to have access to your entire personal

life on a network and sell it.

After years of advocating for further consumer protections,

in October 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

took a responsible and commonsense step to establish

broadband privacy protections--but only months later

Republicans are trying to roll back the progress made and

repeal the existing rules, fighting alongside corporate

broadband providers.

The legislation is unnecessary, as the FCC has already

taken steps to review the rules, pausing implementation to

conduct a careful examination of the complexities of

implementation. The Republican legislation, would stop this

process, bypass public comment, and eliminate the privacy

protections permanently and irrevocably.

That is why I am drawing attention to this critical issue,

before it's too late.

Like these groups, I also believe that privacy is worth defending. In the wrong hands, information can be damaging and used for the wrong reasons.

Simply put, this bill is about conveying the value of the internet to the infrastructure side rather than the content side. And rather than finding common ground to establish reasonable ROI for broadband and internet investments, this bill would hurt the entire internet ecosystem by breaking down the trust between consumers and service providers.

What they are really trying to do here is shift the reasonable burden for cybersecurity measures from the internet servers onto consumers. At the

same time, they want to eliminate the requirements of cybersecurity measures, even notify consumers of violations, and they want to collect more and more consumer data without any protections to do what they want with.

Supporting this bill would make each and every user of the internet vulnerable to violations of our privacy and vulnerable to cybersecurity threats without even receiving notifications of when our own intimate information, like credit card numbers, is compromised.

The FCC took a responsible, deliberate, and commonsense step to establish broadband privacy protections in October 2016. If they need to be tweaked or changed, let's have a process to do that. This bill is not that process. It not only undoes those privacy protections but prevents the FCC from ever issuing a rule that has those privacy protections in it.

Mr. Speaker, if passed, this bill would be an irrevocable step in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 230 provides for a rule to consider a Congressional Review Act resolution which will undo a duplicative regulation put into place by the previous administration in the final hours of that Presidency.

The rule brings before the House this resolution so that Congress may remove through the proper legislative process rules promulgated by bureaucrats who remain unaccountable to the American people. This process allows those who are accountable--the elected Representatives in Congress--to fight for our constituents' rights and liberties.

House Resolution 230 provides for a closed rule for the Congressional Review Act resolution, S.J. Res. 34, the standard procedure for such resolutions, since the sole purpose of the resolution is to remove a regulation from the Federal Register.

The rule allows for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Further, the minority is afforded the customary motion to commit.

The Federal Communications Commission issued its Open Internet Order, reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers, which brought them under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission. The Federal Trade Commission is the primary regulator of companies' privacy and data security practices; however, the Federal Trade Commission's regulatory authority under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not extend to common carriers. Therefore, the reclassification of broadband internet service providers as common carriers created a legal enforcement gap.

The Federal Communications Commission determined that the privacy provisions of the Communications Act would now apply to broadband internet service providers and that new and expanded privacy rules were necessary. Therefore, the Federal Communications Commission promulgated new privacy rules for common carriers on October 27, 2016. These rules were adopted a mere 10 days before the 2016 Presidential election. They were adopted on a party-line vote and over serious objections by the minority Commission members and the internet service providers. The Federal Communications Commission's rules are a departure from the privacy protections that have been applied by the Federal Trade Commission for years.

The Federal Trade Commission employs an opt-out model that requires companies to provide consumers notice of the data that is collected and how it will be used. Consumers are then given the option to opt out of this data collection if they so choose. Instead of implementing well- established collection practices that are accepted industrywide, the Federal Communications Commission chose to promulgate an opt-in model for its new internet service providers. This model prohibits broadband internet service providers from using, disclosing, or providing access to customer proprietary information without the customer's affirmative opt-in consent. Such data includes browsing history, application usage, and location data, among other types of information.

While this may sound like a good thing to opt in to, in reality, it unfairly skews the market in favor of providers that already have access to consumer information. For example, search engines, social media sites, and internet content providers like Netflix, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple, these providers, known as edge providers, are free to collect consumer data that broadband internet service providers, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, are not. The ability to provide consumer data drives the digital advertising market.

The Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules arbitrarily treat internet service providers differently from the rest of the internet, amounting to government intervention in the free market. The Federal Communications Commission stated that the rules would provide more transparency, the rules would provide more choice, the rules would provide more protection; however, these expanded provisions may also result in more frequent breach notifications, leading to a weaker focus on security by consumers who do suffer from notification fatigue.

While the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules were meant to protect consumers, they actually can inhibit security and market competition while creating confusion by subjecting parts of the internet ecosystem to different rules and different jurisdictions. To correct this policy, on March 23, 2017, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 34, a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to nullify the privacy rulemaking promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission.

Prior to the reclassification of broadband internet service providers as common carriers under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission regulated companies' privacy practices while preserving the Federal Communications Commission's authority to enforce privacy obligations of broadband service providers on a case-by-case basis.

This Congressional Review Act will restore the status quo that existed prior to the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet Order and bring the privacy practices of all parts of the internet back into balance. Not only will this level the playing field for an increasingly anticompetitive market, but it will ensure parity in the protection of consumer data.

The new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, has called to halt the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules. He stated: ``All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules. . . . The Federal Government shouldn't favor one set of companies over another.'' This is precisely the type of limited government that we should be striving for after years of overreaching by the previous administration and its regulations. The Congressional Review Act protects consumers, and it restores the free market competitiveness that actually allows our economy to thrive.

The Congressional Review Act is an important tool in maintaining accountability at the Federal level. Its necessity has never been more apparent than over the past 2 months, where this Congress has needed to step in and remove burdensome, unbalanced regulations put in place by the prior administration and their team just as they were walking out the door.

House Republicans today will stand up for the rights of our constituents against the out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the underlying Congressional Review Act resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, to bring us back to the business at hand, which is the rule allowing the vote on the Congressional Review Act later today, I want to quote now from the web page of the Federal Trade Commission, under the title of Protecting Consumer Privacy. Reading from their website:

The Federal Trade Commission has been the chief Federal

agency on privacy policy and enforcement since the 1970s when

it began enforcing one of the first Federal privacy laws--the

Fair Credit Reporting Act. Since then, rapid changes in

technology have raised new privacy challenges, but the

Federal Trade Commission's overall approach has been

consistent. The agency uses law enforcement, policy

initiatives, and consumer and business education to protect

consumers' personal information and ensure that they have the

confidence to take advantage of the many benefits of an ever-

changing marketplace.

This is from the ftc.gov website.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the web page of the Federal Trade Commission.

Federal Trade Commission

Protecting Consumer Privacy

The FTC has been the chief federal agency on privacy policy

and enforcement since the 1970s, when it began enforcing one

of the first federal privacy laws--the Fair Credit Reporting

Act. Since then, rapid changes in technology have raised new

privacy challenges, but the FTC's overall approach has been

consistent: The agency uses law enforcement, policy

initiatives, and consumer and business education to protect

consumers' personal information and ensure that they have the

confidence to take advantage of the many benefits of the

ever-changing marketplace.

FTC's Privacy Report: Balancing Privacy and Innovation;

The Do Not Track Option: Giving Consumers a Choice;

Making Sure Companies Keep Their Privacy Promises to

Consumers;

Protecting Consumers' Financial Privacy;

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA): What

Parents Should Know.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the men and women of the Federal Trade Commission for all the work they have done over the years in protecting our privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, just to put some things in context, I wanted to share some information from a blog called redstate.com, posted by Seton Motley, on March 27, 2017, talking about the difference between the size and scope of edge providers versus the ISPs, the internet service providers. The parent company of one of the largest edge providers is valued at over $500 billion. He points out in his blog post, by way of comparison, the nation of Singapore's gross domestic product, the entire output for every man, woman, and child in a very productive country is $508 billion. Basically, the same. So the edge provider stands on equal financial footing of the world's 40th richest country.

By way of contrast, the Nation's largest internet service provider has a net worth of $148 billion. So the edge provider is more than three and a half times larger than the Nation's largest ISP.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I think we can begin to see the scope of the problem and why unbalancing this playing field is inherently a bad idea.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I apparently do not have any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I include in the Record an op-ed from The Wall Street Journal from March 1, 2017, by Jeff Flake, a member of the other body. The title of the op-ed is ``Settling a Bureaucratic Turf War in Online Privacy Rules.''

[From The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 1, 2017]

Settling a Bureaucratic Turf War in Online Privacy Rules

(By Jeff Flake)

When you shop online from your tablet or browse the

internet on your smartphones, you expect your personal data

to be secure. Technology companies invest billions of dollars

on data security to protect consumer privacy.

Privacy is also a cornerstone of consumer protection, with

federal enforcement agencies striking an appropriate balance

between innovation and security in their regulations. But

just as a flawed line of code can render a new firewall

program useless, the new privacy rules that were rushed

through in the waning days of the Obama administration risk

crashing our longstanding privacy-protection regime.

For two decades, the Federal Trade Commission has been

America's sole online privacy regulator. Under the FTC's

watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the

world. The agency's evidence-based approach calibrates

privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of

information collected, used or shared online, and applies

protections in a consistent and evenhanded way across

business sectors. Consumer behavior demonstrates the success

of the FTC's regulatory approach: Each day people spend more

time engaging in online activities.

But in 2015, in a bid to expand its own power, the Federal

Communications Commission short-circuited the effectiveness

of the FTC's approach by reclassifying internet service

providers as common carriers, subject to Title II of the

Communications Act.

In taking that unprecedented action, the FCC unilaterally

stripped the FTC of its traditional jurisdiction over ISPs.

The FTC can no longer police the privacy practices of

providers, leaving us with a two-track system under which the

FCC applies its own set of rules for ISPs while the FTC

monitors the rest of the internet ecosystem.

Even after the 2015 power grab, the FCC could have simply

adopted as its own the FTC's successful sensitivity-based

model of privacy regulation. Instead--after last year's

election--the FCC finalized privacy regulations that deviate

extensively from the FTC framework in several key respects.

The FCC rules subject all web browsing and app usage data

to the same restrictive requirements as sensitive personal

information. That means that information generated from

looking up the latest Cardinals score or checking the weather

in Scottsdale is treated the same as personal health and

financial data.

The new rules also restrict an ISP's ability to inform

customers about innovative and cost-saving product offerings.

So much for consumer choice.

The FCC's overreach is a dangerous deviation from

successful regulation and common-sense industry practices.

But don't just take my word for it. The FTC concluded that

the FCC's decision to treat ISPs differently from the rest of

the internet ecosystem was ``not optimal--agency-speak for

``a really bad idea.''

Outside of the FTC's well-founded concerns, the new rules

are also a departure from bipartisan agreement on the need

for consistent online privacy rules. President Obama noted in

2012 that ``companies should present choices about data

sharing, collection, use, and disclosure that are appropriate

for the scale, scope, and sensitivity of personal data in

question at the time of collection.'' In other words, privacy

rules should be based on the data itself.

But that's not how the FCC sees it. The commission's rules

suffocate industry and harm consumers by creating two

completely different sets of requirements for different parts

of the internet.

To protect consumers from these harmful new regulations, I

will soon introduce a resolution under the Congressional

Review Act to repeal the FCC's flawed privacy rules. While

the resolution would eliminate those rules, it would not

change the current statutory classification of broadband

service or bring ISPs back under FTC jurisdiction. Instead,

the resolution would scrap the FCC's newly imposed privacy

rules in the hope that it would follow the FTC's successful

sensitivity-based framework.

This CRA resolution does nothing to change the privacy

protections consumers currently enjoy. I hope Congress and

the FCC will continue working together to address issues of

concern down the road. However, it is imperative for rule-

making entities to stay in their jurisdictional lanes. We

need to reject these harmful midnight privacy regulations

that serve only to empower bureaucrats and hurt consumers.

I want to read from a couple of the lines from this op- ed. The Senator states here: ``Privacy is also a cornerstone of consumer protection, with Federal enforcement agencies striking an appropriate balance between innovation and security in their regulations. But just as a flawed line of code can render a new firewall program useless, the new privacy rules that were rushed through in the waning days of the Obama administration risk crashing our longstanding privacy-protection regime.''

Continuing to quote here: ``For two decades, the Federal Trade Commission has been America's sole online privacy regulator. Under the FTC's watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the world. The agency's evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected, used or shared online, and applies protections in a consistent and evenhanded way across business sectors. Consumer behavior demonstrates the success of the FTC's regulatory approach: Each day people spend more time engaging in online activities.''

Now, continuing to quote here: ``The FCC's overreach is a dangerous deviation from successful regulation and commonsense industry practices. But don't take my word for it. The FTC concluded that the FCC's decision to treat ISPs differently from the rest of the internet ecosystem was `not optimal'--agencyspeak for `a really bad idea.' ''

One final quote from Senator Flake's op-ed: ``This CRA resolution does nothing to change the privacy protections consumers currently enjoy. I hope Congress and the FCC will continue working together to address issues of concern down the road. However, it is imperative for rulemaking entities to stay in their jurisdictional lanes. We need to reject these harmful midnight privacy regulations that serve only to empower bureaucrats and hurt consumers.''

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a duplicative Federal regulation dropped on the doorstep of the American people in the last hours of the previous administration. The rule the House will be voting on today to repeal would create uncertainty and chaos surrounding the protection of people's privacy online.

I want to thank Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee, the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communication and Technology, for her work on this critical issue.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the balance of her time to me.

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the House companion to S.J. Res. 34, I rise to strongly urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us today. Like all of my colleagues in the House, I care deeply about protecting the privacy of our constituents, but I cannot support the Federal Communications Commission's counterproductive rules that will actually harm consumers and stifle innovation.

For 20 years, the Federal Trade Commission--or the FTC, as we call it, frequently--oversaw consumer privacy for the entire internet ecosystem: content providers, advertisers, and internet service providers, or ISPs. The FTC's privacy program focused on preserving sensitive consumer data and took the context of a consumer's relationship with businesses into consideration. The FTC's experience in implementing a wide range of rules and regulations has resulted in over 500 cases protecting consumer information, ensuring their privacy online.

In a flawed political move, absent any finding, complaints, or investigations to determine whether broadband providers have violated consumers' privacy or that the FTC had failed at doing its job, the FCC proceeded with a partisan vote to target ISPs and to expand its regulatory footprint.

After stripping the FTC of its authority over the privacy practices of internet service providers, the FCC subsequently adopted rules that would harm consumers and split the internet, creating an uneven playing field between service providers and content providers. Congress must fix this overreach so the new administration can create a comprehensive, consistent set of privacy protections.

Consumers expect their privacy to be protected the same way no matter what type of entity holds their data. Having two sets of requirements creates confusion for consumers and may jeopardize their confidence in the internet.

Our internet economy has thrived under the privacy regime created by the FTC. Yet the FCC, under its previous Chairman, Tom Wheeler, wanted to undermine that success by bifurcating privacy protections to serve outside political interests, not the American consumer.

By contrast, the FCC's approach did not base its requirements on consumers' preferences about sensitive information and to set opt-in and opt-out defaults. Accordingly, its overall approach was top-down, heavyhanded regulation in stark contrast to the FTC's greater reliance on markets and consumer preferences.

The FCC's rule has a number of problematic issues:

The first is that the opt-in/opt-out regime reduces consumer choice and would be detrimental to the survival of many businesses in this country.

The second is that the FCC would have prohibited unforeseeable future uses of collected data regardless of what consumers actually preferred and businesses may need.

Third, the FCC would also have unjustly applied its heavyhanded approach to broadband providers, treating them more harshly than other players in the internet ecosystem.

In sum, the FCC's broadband privacy protection approach would have rejected free markets and ignored sound economics.

Alternatively, the FTC private enforcement is market oriented and flexible and adaptable to changes in consumer preferences and markets. It also treats companies and players neutrally, fostering an environment of competition and innovation.

This resolution rescinds the FCC's rule, but it does provide the FCC the opportunity to provide oversight more in line with the FTC, which has been successfully regulating online privacy for nearly two decades.

This joint resolution does not lessen or impede privacy and data security standards that have already been established. We are simply restoring a more stable regulatory playing field to ensure that consistent, uniform privacy security standards are maintained to protect consumers and future innovation.

Once Congress rejects these rules, the FCC can turn back to cooperating with

the FTC to ensure that both consumer privacy across all aspects of the internet is provided through vigorous enforcement and also that innovation is allowed to flourish.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the GOP whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Speaker, we are thinking that the gentleman's comments do not pertain to this resolution, that this resolution in no way is going to allow any of the activities that were described, whether it is cuddling or anything that is going to get in the way of any of that or allowed to be sold.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have heard a lot of interesting claims today in the discussion about this fairly simple resolution to roll back overreaching regulation from the FCC that were passed late in the Obama administration's time.

I would remind everybody, Mr. Speaker, that this CRA has nothing to do with the President's tax return, it has nothing to do with Russian hacking, and there have been some gross mischaracterizations of what this resolution does.

Why do we need this resolution?

The three reasons are, as Chairwoman Blackburn opened up at the beginning:

First of all, the FCC swiped jurisdiction from the FTC.

Second, two cops on the beat create confusion among consumers and among the ISP providers.

Third, the FTC already has jurisdiction over this space.

Let me close with this: this resolution of disapproval only rescinds the FCC's rule, but it still provides the FCC the opportunity to provide more oversight more in line with the Federal Trade Commission, which has successfully been regulating online privacy for nearly 2 decades.

This resolution does not lessen or impede the privacy and data security standards that we already have established. We are simply restoring a more stable regulatory playing field to ensure that consistent uniform privacy standards are maintained to protect consumers and future innovation.

Once Congress rejects these rules, the FCC can turn back to cooperating with the FTC to ensure both the consumer privacy across all aspects of the internet is protected through vigorous enforcement and that innovation is allowed to flourish.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 230, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 34) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to ``Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 34.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of S.J. Res. 34, which disapproves of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to protecting the privacy of customers of broadband and other telecommunication services.

I applaud Senator Flake's work on this issue, as S.J. Res. 34 was passed by the Senate last week. I also filed a companion resolution in the House.

The FCC finalized its broadband privacy rules on October 27, 2016. At that time, they assured us that the rules would provide broadband customers meaningful choice, greater transparency, and stronger security protections for their personal information collected by internet service providers, but the reality is much different.

There are three specific problems with which the FCC has gone about these rules. First, the FCC unilaterally swiped jurisdiction from the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has served as our Nation's sole online privacy regulator for over 20 years.

Second, having two privacy cops on the beat will create confusion within the internet ecosystem and will end up harming consumers.

Third, the FCC already has authority to enforce privacy obligations of broadband service providers on a case-by-case basis. These broadband privacy rules are unnecessary and are just another example of Big Government overreach. The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that Federal regulations cost our economy $1.9 trillion in 2015.

Since President Trump took office, Republicans have been working diligently to loosen the regulatory environment that is suffocating hardworking taxpayers.

Here is what multiple House Democrats said in a letter to the FCC last May regarding the FCC's privacy rules:

The rulemaking intends to go well beyond the traditional

framework that has guarded consumers from data practices of

internet service providers and ill-served consumers who seek

and expect consistency in how their personal data is

protected.

Further, FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright testified before Congress that the FTC has unique experience in enforcing broadband service providers' obligations to protect the privacy and security of consumer data. He added that the rules will actually do less to protect consumers by depriving the FTC of its longstanding jurisdiction in the area. Once again, these rules hurt consumers.

Incredibly, former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler referred to the internet as the most powerful and pervasive network in the history of the planet before these rules were even created. I found this really odd because it implied that the FTC regulation had indeed been successful and ought to continue, ultimately undermining his own rationale for additional FCC privacy regulation.

Now, there are a couple of myths that are going around that I want to take the time to dispel. Our friends claim there will be a gap for ISPs in the FCC privacy rules when they are overturned. This simply is false, and let me tell you why. The FCC already has the authority to enforce the privacy obligations of broadband service providers on a case-by-case basis.

Pursuant to section 201 of the Communications Act, they can police practices of the ISPs that are unjust or unreasonable. Sections 202 and 222 also protect consumers. It is already in statute. So I encourage my friends to read title II of the Communications Act. Also, the State attorneys general have the ability to go after companies for unfair and deceptive practices.

Third, litigation is another avenue consumers can pursue against ISPs for mishandling personal data. Service providers have privacy policies. If they violate the policy, guess what? They can be sued. I know Democrats will certainly understand that, as they have many trial lawyer friends, and I urge them to speak to the trial bar.

Fourth, the free market is another great equalizer. Can you imagine the embarrassment for an ISP that is caught unlawfully selling data? We have all seen the economic fallout from something such as a data breach. Companies have a financial incentive to handle your personal data properly because to do otherwise would significantly impair their financial standing.

To my Democrat friends across the aisle, the bottom line is this: the only gap that exists is in these arguments that you have made.

Consumer privacy is something we all want to protect, and consumer privacy will continue to be protected and will actually be enhanced by removing the uncertainty and confusion these rules will create, as the Democrats Rush, Schrader, and Green indicated in a letter to the FCC last May.

I also want to speak, for just a moment, on the edge providers because there has been some question about who has visibility into your data. Clinton administration veteran privacy expert Peter Swire offered a report in February 2016 titled ``Online Privacy in ISPs.''

ISP's access to consumer data is limited and often less than access to others. Swire found that ISPs have less visibility into consumer behavior online than search, social media, advertising, and big tech companies.

Swire's study found that, as a result of advancing technologies, the rise of encryption, and the various ways and locations individuals access the internet, ISPs now have increasingly limited insight into our activities and information online.

By contrast, however, so-called edge providers, like search engines, social media, advertising, shopping, and other services online, often have greater visibility into personal consumer data.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleagues across the aisle that, again, section 222 of the Communications Act covers the authority that the FCC needs. Traditionally, online privacy has been handled by the FTC. That is an authority that we have designated to them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.