Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the La Grande American Legion Post No. 43 on 100 years of service to eastern Oregon, and for their continued support and leadership in my home state.

In Oregon, we understand how important it is to support our veterans. The La Grande Post No. 43 has been a steadfast partner in this effort. With over 117 Posts and 17,000 fraternal members in Oregon--and over 2 million affiliate members--the American Legion is a strong advocate for the veteran community in our great state of Oregon and across the country.

The La Grande Post No. 43 has been a vital part of the community during these last one hundred years. They place American flags on veterans' graves on Memorial Day and organize and participate in local veterans' parades. They also lead donation efforts for local firefighters' organizations, make monthly visits to veterans in retirement homes in our community, mount up the Patriot Guard to attend funerals with aims-firing details, and volunteering thousands of hours at VA medical facilities.

A little over a year ago, I had breakfast with a group of veterans-- some of whom are members of Post No. 43--that spend time every week serving ice cream to disabled veterans throughout La Grande and the surrounding community. They call themselves the ``Vets Ice Cream Patrol,'' and the time and energy they spend with veterans every week is a simple, but powerful, gesture of camaraderie and service.

Over the past 100 years, the American Legion has assisted over 700,000 veterans and families across the nation in collecting their benefits; honored our veterans and led memorial tributes for fallen comrades; and volunteered thousands of hours at VA medical facilities. La Grande Post No. 43 has been a valued part of that tradition.

Being a champion for our veterans is an endeavor that transcends party lines and is a small expression of gratitude for all they have done to protect our freedoms. The American Legion has led the effort in this, with an emphasis on service to the local community and volunteerism to improve the quality of life for Oregon veterans.

In celebration and gratitude for all that they do, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the La Grande American Legion Post No. 43 on 100 years of unwavering service to Oregon veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment itself.

Mr. Chair, I support the goal of this amendment in assessing the broadband marketplace and how the government can increase competition, lower prices, and improve the quality of service. This is a worthy subject for GAO to look into, and I think we can gain valuable insights.

This is something we could have approved in the Energy and Commerce Committee had it been brought to us, but we accept it here on the floor.

But if we were really looking for ways to increase competition, Mr. Chairman, in the wireless broadband marketplace, then I am baffled why Democrats did not find the need to examine how 5G networks will be severely threatened by their bill.

Numerous reports from entities not even in the tech space indicate that title II, this overreaching government takeover and the incredible power being given to the FCC to take charge of the internet, presents serious challenges to 5G deployment and its amazing potential for technical improvements.

These reports come from Barclays, which focuses on investment and banking, Oracle, and even the IEEE, which is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, so it is not a bunch of politicians talking about this, Mr. Chairman. These are certified smart people, otherwise known as the real engineers, that we went to.

To quote their analysis, ``5G networks face the challenge of being developed in a context of high uncertainty, where most of the services that underpin 5G business models appear to be unlawful under current rules.''

One example of the efficiencies that can be realized in a 5G network is network slicing which will allow operators to provide different services with different performance characteristics to address specific use cases. Because 5G is being designed for a wider range of use cases than prior technologies, it is critical that quality of service management be employed.

Applying net neutrality to these new 5G networks would cripple the performance of this incredible new technology.

Mr. Guthrie, a Republican from Kentucky, offered an amendment to address our serious concerns about the impact of the Democrats' bill on 5G, but that amendment to preserve the growth of 5G was not given an opportunity to be part of today's vote. Sadly, we can't even debate it. It is not here.

New 5G wireless networks will not only one day support apps and web pages, and texts, and chats, and video streams, but will also support a wide range of new technologies, from autonomous vehicles, augmented reality, innovations in healthcare delivery and education, to all other kinds of new advances, Mr. Chairman.

These new innovations, let alone the innovations beyond 5G to come, would be simply impossible, we now believe, and I think others believe independent of us, with these heavy-handed proposals that will result from title II power being given to bureaucrats in Washington. That is what the underlying bill would do.

It is worth remembering that until 2015, the Federal Communications Commission treated wireless networks differently when regulating net neutrality, because it did not want to impede the growth of a nascent technology. If we were to apply that same logic today, we should not burden developing 5G networks with onerous and outdated regulations, as these 5G networks are even more in their infancy than wireless was back in 2010, Mr. Chairman.

So we need to make sure that we don't handicap this next generation of technology with rules designed for rotary telephones that could cause us to delay or lose a global race to widely deploy 5G.

Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks. I support the underlying amendment, the Davids amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other speakers, I don't believe. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chair, I would recommend that my friend from Pennsylvania read this Barclays piece on what the bill likely could do to diminish the growth in 5G build-out, which I include in the Congressional Record.

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

Net Neutrality: Blunt Tool for a Fast-Changing Ecosystem

More heat than light in present Net Neutrality debate:

While Net Neutrality and related issues have evoked strong

passions since the early 2000s, very little of the discussion

has evolved despite significant technological and economic

shifts. The issue has come back into focus with House

Democrats introducing a new bill to reinstate the 2015

Internet Order which was repealed by the FCC post the

election of President Trump. The issue is also making its way

through the courts with 20+ states and tech companies

predictably suing against the FCC's repeal. Therefore, this

issue is likely to remain in the headlines especially given

elections next year.

Reinstating 2015 Open Internet Order may make it tough to

realize full potential of 5G: We believe that Net Neutrality

formulations as proposed in Congress are blunt tools to deal

with a fast-changing technological landscape. The entire

premise of 5G is the ability to enable different network

capabilities for different applications. The 5G standards

development body, 3GPP, has outlined three major use cases

for the technology: enhanced Mobile Broadband, Massive IoT,

and ultra-reliable low latency. While all three are likely to

be used for consumer-facing applications, two of the three

major use cases are also being targeted at industrial users.

Dimensions of data use will also be more varied than just

speed or volume. Some applications will need to transmit

small amounts of data at constant periods (e.g. smart meters)

while others will need bursts of high bandwidth consuming

traffic (e.g. fixed wireless). Therefore, if implemented, the

2015 Open Internet Order framework (ban on paid

prioritization and throttling) without accounting for

emerging technological capabilities and applications is

likely to become a roadblock to 5G monetization.

Title II could have a bigger operational impact than Net

Neutrality: While the Open Internet Order has implications

for future business models, if adopted as law, a more

immediate concern for Internet service providers will be the

push to redefine broadband as a Title II service.

Operationally, this could constrain the degrees of freedom

around variables such as pricing a lot more than the Open

Internet Order itself.

Overall, while the need for some framework on Net

Neutrality is agreed to by both sides of the political

divide, the current set of proposals are, in our view,

inadequate with material limitations on future business

models. The issue requires a comprehensive look at the entire

value chain including the edge, but divided regulatory

jurisdictions and a split Congress make this difficult to

achieve. Therefore, for now, we believe the issue will be

resolved by courts and is likely be a headline risk for

telecom and cable companies.

While Net Neutrality evokes strong passions politically,

very little of the discussion has evolved despite significant

technological and economic shifts. We believe that Net

Neutrality formulations as they exist today are blunt tools

to deal with a fast-changing technological landscape.

For instance, the entire premise of 5G is the ability to

enable different network capabilities for different

applications. The 5G standard development body has outlined

three major use cases for the technology. enhanced Mobile

Broadband (eMBB), Massive IoT (mIoT) and ultra-reliable low

latency (URLLC). While all three are likely to be used for

consumer facing applications, two of the three major use

cases are also being targeted at industrial users (mIoT and

URLLC). Data use across these applications is likely to be

quite varied. For instance, smart meters will need to

transmit small amounts of data at constant periods while

consumer broadband works on bursts of high bandwidth

consuming traffic such as video. Applications such as

autonomous cars and remote surgery may value lower latency

and higher edge computing capacity compared to, for example,

checking email or watching video.

This is quite different from previous generations of

wireless standards which thus far have been largely focused

on consumer applications. The way Congress appears to be

looking at Net Neutrality today or the way the FCC has looked

at this in the past would effectively result in operators

being forced to provide the same level of service to every

application which will not only result in waste but also

limit the impact of 5G. In fact, if the promise of 5G is

realized the way it has been outlined by operators globally,

the whole meaning of what a telecom `service' means (is it

latency? is it speed? it is edge compute?) and how it is

measured is likely to change meaningfully.

Some conditions included in the 2015 Order such as paid

prioritization and throttling could in theory make it

impossible to deploy and monetize some of the features that

make 5G a bigger shift than prior generations. In a 5G world,

this would make it impossible in theory to prioritize latency

for, as an example, a driverless car versus somebody watching

Netflix. Of course regulators can fine-tune these definitions

but that is not what the House bill seeks to do. It

effectively passes this judgment to an administrative body--

the FCC. Given that FCC decisions on this issue have been

split along political affiliations of the Commissioners,

every regime at the FCC could make opposing decisions making

the implementation of any policy next to impossible. This

opens up the entire issue to a lot of uncertainty which is

likely to limit the ability of service providers to formulate

go-to-market plans for 5G.

We also believe that the Net Neutrality framework as of

today (no prioritization, no blocking and no throttling) is

without any nuance to deal with what might be legitimate and

consumer-friendly use cases. For instance, Netflix alone

consumes cents19% of downstream bandwidth

(wireless and wired) in the US today. In the early days of

cable, when bandwidth in the cable pipe was limited due to

analog signals, content networks had to pay cable companies

for carriage. This allowed a market-based mechanism for

viable networks to effectively `buy' bandwidth and scale

their services based on how widely they were distributed.

Netflix however doesn't have to worry about this dynamic. It

can make its technology decisions independent of the

investment needs of the network. In theory, Netflix can

decide to stream all its videos in 4K and suck up even more

bandwidth, which will be to the detriment of other

applications on the Internet and force cable and wireless

companies to increase their network investment. At the same

time, cable companies will have to deal with broadband price

monitoring by the FCC (which the 2015 Open Internet Order

enables), limiting their ability to pass through price to the

consumer or to Netflix (due to a ban on paid prioritization).

Overall, while the need for some framework on Net

Neutrality is unquestionable, the move by the House to just

pass the buck back to the FCC to deal with the details is not

the right answer in our opinion. This needs a legislative

solution on the scale of the 1996 Telecommunications Act but

this is almost impossible in the current environment. As a

result, we believe this issue is likely to remain unresolved

for a long time to come. Near-term, however, if this

legislation were to pass, it could have a bigger impact on

wireless 5G plans than on wireline operators.

Mr. Chair, I would also point out, actually, that the bill would regulate 5G. We had a vote in committee to prevent that from happening, and every Democrat on the committee voted to regulate 5G through this legislation and give the FCC that authority, and every Republican voted the other way, because we actually vote for open and free internet and markets.

I know that the gentleman, my friend, was pretty busy when the President's people made their statement. I commented that day that I didn't think that was a good approach. So I have been on record, and I think most of my colleagues have as well. That is kind of an argument that, Mr. Chairman, I don't think holds much water.

What we do know is, we are legislating today, and the Democrats' legislation will regulate 5G, and the people who evaluate the effect of that say that is going to harm development, rollout, and probably investment as well.

Mr. Chair, the underlying amendment is good, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I share similar concerns to Mr. Stanton about promoting broadband deployment on Tribal lands. I have visited a number of reservations around the country, including in Arizona, as well as, of course, in my own State of Oregon and elsewhere.

This is a big issue, and the data are not complete. I agree with you that we need to do better. In fact, that is true, and I think we would all agree that the data the FCC gets, has, and uses has been a problem for a very long time. We have to get better so that when we allocate these funds to do the build-out and everything else, we are getting funds to the people who really need them. That is especially a problem with our Native American friends.

In fact, while I was presiding over the Energy and Commerce Committee last Congress, we accomplished landmark legislation with the enactment of RAY BAUM'S Act. That reauthorized the FCC, and it included language to improve services on Tribal lands, Mr. Chairman.

We need to make sure that the policies we impose on the internet support broadband deployment, especially deployment in Tribal, rural, and very rural areas. Oftentimes, the Tribal areas consist of rural areas where we have very small internet service providers providing access to the internet, and they are desperately trying to find funding to expand their service footprint.

I was a small business owner with my wife for more than 20 years. I will tell you, you are trying to grow your small business, and then the government comes in and says: Oh, we want more information. We want more requirements. And we are going to regulate you more.

Mr. Chairman, all that does is take your money and your plan to invest and diverts it. You don't get to do as much as you had planned to do. That is why I supported an amendment to the underlying bill that would have specifically protected a small business from the heavy hand of overreporting.

That amendment would have included the language of my bill on small businesses that was passed unanimously by the House in each of the last two Congresses--unanimously, right here on this floor. It would have extended the exemption for small ISPs from President Obama's FCC's enhanced transparency rules for 5 years and expanded the exemption to include businesses with 250,000 subscribers or less.

This was based on a bipartisan compromise that the FCC's original exemption was not enough to protect small ISPs. We all agreed to that. We negotiated that and twice passed that unanimously in the House.

I agree that all consumers should be protected, but the enhanced transparency rules could deter broadband from being deployed further on Tribal lands and reaching consumers in the first place. That is because these enhanced disclosures place an unnecessary regulatory burden on small businesses and distract them from working to bring broadband internet access to customers across the country, especially on Tribal lands.

As a reminder, my amendment would not have let ISPs skirt transparency. It did not do that. We are just talking about really costly reporting requirements. Instead, they would follow the less onerous transparency rules adopted by the FCC back in 2010 so consumers would still have access to information needed to make informed decisions about their internet service, and ISPs could focus on providing service rather than cumbersome regulatory requirements.

There is bipartisan consensus in improving broadband deployment to Tribal lands and, I think, our rural areas and our urban areas that are underserved. But it seems my colleagues across the aisle don't support this as much as we claim and they claim. Otherwise, I would have expected the amendment I had, which reflected exactly what we twice agreed to, to be part of the underlying bill. It is not, and that is unfortunate. But Mr. Stanton's work is valuable, and I support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief here. The only effort to nationalize 5G and to fully regulate 5G is contained in the Democrats' bill. That is where it is happening.

We had an amendment in the Rules Committee to prevent that, and the Democrats who control the Rules Committee by a 2-to-1 margin refused to even allow us to debate that amendment here on the floor.

Finally, the President never said he was going to nationalize 5G. Somebody leaked a memo out of the White House that said that is a good idea. I oppose that. Right that same day, within hours, they had been clear on that.

Let's be clear here. The facts of the matter are that this legislation nationalizes and regulates 5G like it has never been done before and threatens innovation and development of this exciting new opportunity for American consumers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. McCarthy), who is the Republican leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's concern about the accuracy of the FCC's reports on deployment. I share those. And with his broader concern about broadband generally, I agree with that.

In fact, many Members on both sides of the aisle share these concerns, especially when it comes to the unserved Americans in our most rural areas, like my district that would stretch from the Atlantic to Ohio. It is a big district.

So, I will support this amendment. However, I would ask my colleagues to seriously consider, Mr. Chairman, the negative impacts of giving the FCC power to regulate rates on rural broadband deployment.

Mr. Kinzinger's amendment to block any sort of rate regulation was actually blocked by the majority from being considered today, and that is unfortunate.

At the full committee markup, Mr. Kinzinger highlighted a memo from the Congressional Research Service that noted there is nothing permanent to the forbearance that the majority claims to be doing when it comes to controlling the prices providers charge consumers.

So, we could get into rate regulation through the FCC, and every ISP would have to come back here and beg and explain their rate structure and everything else. And we have got thousands of them.

The majority attempted to remedy this flaw with some additional language purporting to lock in the FCC's forbearance on this matter, but the actual effect of that language is still unclear.

Most importantly, they left open the broad authority of sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act and other authority that gives the Federal Communications Commission, all five unelected officials, plenty of leeway to regulate rates under title II.

The legislation we have before us clearly leaves the door open to rate regulation. If this were not the case, then the Kinzinger amendment, I would think, would be before the House today or would have been approved in committee when we had a chance to do that.

This is no way to conduct business in the internet age. These title II regulations were originally implemented for railroad monopolies in the 19th century. So, if you really believe in a competitive, open marketplace and a competitive, open internet, you don't turn it over to unelected bureaucrats in Washington to micromanage.

As they were applied in their original incarnation, the requirements of just and reasonable practices under section 201(b) and no unreasonable discrimination under 202(a)--which, by the way, sound perfect--provided sufficient authority to impose price controls on railroads.

So, by opening the door with title II and these other sections of law, you are now giving this vast power to basically three unelected officials at the FCC. You just need a majority to decide how the whole internet runs. I think that is a problem.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

Again, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. As I said, I intend to support it. We need the facts here, and I support getting the facts.

We know the reporting data we often get is not accurate. And, if people are lying about their data, then we should hold them accountable, and I'll join you in that effort. That is not acceptable.

On the issue of rate regulation, that is what title II is all about. That is what this bill gives the FCC the authority to do.

While you can argue that adopting the forbearances that the FCC did under title II when they had that authority may preclude rate regulation there, by giving them this enormous authority, your own counsel testified in answer to our question, that they could go through a standard rulemaking process and use sections 201 and 202 to do their own rate regulation.

You see, you may close the front door, but you left the back door open. Actually, you created a back door.

That is where I am concerned, and my side is concerned that you are empowering the FCC with these incredible authorities designed for monopoly railroads and designed for monopoly communications systems that could really hamper future investment in things like 5G and provide all this micromanagement of the internet and harm consumers. That is why so many of us oppose this particular provision.

I keep seeing Republicans on this floor, Mr. Chairman, accept the Democrats' amendments in almost every case. They blocked some of ours from being able to be considered.

But, when it comes to this fundamental issue of turning the internet over to the Federal Government and three unelected people to do incredible things that aren't good for the long-term benefit of consumers and new technologies, we have to remain opposed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, I support this amendment to require the GAO to look into ways to promote deployment of broadband to our most rural and underserved areas. It is a very worthy subject and one on which I think we can find some really broad bipartisan agreement. It is a top priority of mine and has been, so I won't oppose the amendment.

We are obviously delegating a lot of authority to the GAO, which is a wonderful organization, but we all have had hearings and know what really needs to happen, I think, going forward to get broadband built out. However, if you are really concerned about deployment to rural and underserved areas, you should be extremely concerned about the impact the underlying bill is going to have on our ability to get broadband out to these areas and close the digital divide.

Title II is a proven investment killer, period, hard stop. This is shown not only in the overall nationwide investment numbers going down during the only 2-year blip these rules were in effect. Remember, my colleague from New York, these internet rules you are about only existed for less than about 2 years. That is it.

The whole growth, the expansion of the internet and broadband occurred during the period of the 1990s to 2015. Then the internet order was put in and investment went down, and then the internet order was repealed and investment is going up.

The head of the Eastern Oregon Telecom Company, Joe Franell, came back to Washington and testified before our subcommittee and said, under title II, his investors lost interest; deals dried up; the bank wouldn't even give him a loan. It was an extremely compelling story from somebody who is on the front lines of getting broadband built out to the very areas you and I would agree need service.

And we heard from many other small rural ISPs as well with the same stories. They are the ones that take the worst hit under title II that is in this bill you support.

Now, I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee to do something real to address the worst uncertainties that these small carriers have to deal with under title II.

Title II opens the door to government control of private networks. It opens the door to government taxation of the internet. It opens the door to government regulation of speech online.

My amendment would have closed all of those doors. Unfortunately, the Democrats, again, who control the Rules Committee, Mr. Chairman, 2 to 1, would not find a way to even allow us to bring that amendment here for a vote or debate.

I have to say, under title II, our smallest rural ISPs would have a really tough time, and we have seen a lot of evidence of this in the past. So I hope my friends will consider that, when we are voting on this underlying bill, we are actually going to cause those small ISPs more harm than good, and that will delay deployment into unserved and underserved communities.

A GAO study on deployment will have no impact whatsoever on deployment-killing excesses of title II, but it will give us some ideas about how to build out broadband, so I won't oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate both my colleagues' comments, but the nationwide numbers of investment obscure what happens in our smallest investors, among those that are out

there, like Joe Franell in Eastern Oregon trying to build out.

What we do know is he came back and testified to the problem he encountered individually as one who is very progressive and active, trying to connect really difficult places to get to with the highest speed broadband possible.

I have met with him before; I have met with him during; I have met with him afterwards. He came back on his own dime to make the case that, when these rules were in effect, he had difficulty getting loans; he had difficulty building out; he was burdened more than he had ever been before, and that diminished his ability to build out.

His numbers probably are dust in terms of investment that the big companies have, but that is who I care about are the little operators that are so pushed down by this heavy hand of government overregulation. So that is, I think, what we have to maintain our focus on.

Again, title II gives these vast unprecedented powers to the FCC to regulate the internet like it has never been regulated before. People who have no Gs need our help, but people waiting for 5G don't need us to pass legislation that will screw it up and diminish innovation, and that is one of the reasons I am opposing this version of net neutrality.

We could agree on no throttling and no blocking and the paid prioritization issue as well.

The other thing I found interesting, Mr. Chairman, is, throughout the course of all of our hearings, there wasn't a witness panel of people who had faced all of these parade of horribles we have heard about from ISPs.

There weren't any witnesses. They didn't bring anybody. I don't know if they are out there or not. They didn't bring anybody who has been affected by the edge providers, however, and that is another subject for our conversation going forward.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't think I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with my colleague from Virginia that the maps showing broadband deployment in the United States can and must be improved. That is why, when Republicans held the majority for the Energy and Commerce Committee, we held numerous hearings on how to do that, how to improve broadband mapping at the

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and the gentleman's comments. We can figure out how to work this out, I think. But clearly, we have to fix the maps.

Even the industry has told me, at least--they admit the data, the way it is collected and everything else, is not an accurate representation. They would like our help in this as well.

Hopefully, we can move forward on an NTIA reauthorization as well. We marched through a number of agency reauthorizations and programmatic reauthorizations that hadn't been done in decades in the last 2 years. We should continue that important work as well. We stand ready as Republicans to join our colleagues to get that done.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague across the aisle, Mr. McAdams, that ISPs should be able to block unlawful content, and I support his amendment.

In fact, even when the FCC imposed the heavy-handed title II regulations, it recognized in paragraph 113 of its order that the ban on blocking did not ``prevent or restrict a broadband provider from refusing to transmit unlawful material, such as child pornography or copyright-infringing materials.''

This was similar to the FCC's earlier nonblocking rule, which was also affirmed, that ISPs could block material that was unlawful.

It strikes me as interesting that you have to have this amendment to apparently clarify an ambiguity some must feel exists in the underlying bill, but we will support it if it is necessary to do that.

I firmly support net neutrality that allows Americans to enjoy the lawful content on the internet and applications of their choosing.

I would point out to my friend from Utah that the concerns about social media, and I share them, are not covered by this legislation. Those big platforms are completely exempt, as near as we can tell, so that is another area where I think we all share a common bond, that there is concern about what goes on in social media, things that aren't legal, things that are fake. I mean, you name it.

Under title II, the FCC could police internet content, as it currently does with content broadcasts over television or radio. I was a radio broadcaster for 21 years, owned and operated stations, and that concerns me a bit if we are going to get the FCC being the Nation's speech police. By making further rules on the ISPs, you might be able to end up there. That is a concern.

This is a really broad, open-ended authority that you all are giving to the Federal Communications Commission. That is because the FCC did not forebear from some content-specific provisions of title II, such as section 223. That would give the FCC authority to impose content-based restrictions if it found it to be ``just and reasonable.'' That goes well beyond just the legal content, I think.

I am not burdened with a law degree, but I have some really good lawyers that counsel me on these matters.

This is why we offered an amendment that would have put certain protections in place for consumers' freedom of speech online because that is also something we all swear to uphold, our First Amendment rights of religion and speech.

Rather than talk about how we can prevent the FCC from someday abusing the expansive authority that the majority is about to give it, we are here discussing something that has been universally agreed upon by all parties to this debate.

Mr. Chair, we appreciate the gentleman's perfecting amendment to this legislation. I intend to support it.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I again thank the gentleman from Utah for bringing this amendment. I guess my suspicions were right: It is merely restating what is already in the 2015 order, which is what this bill basically reinstates into law.

Mr. Chair, I thank my staff as well for the great job they have done. I appreciate both sides as we work together on these complicated and sometimes controversial issues.

I would point out that, under sections 223 and 201, you are again opening the door to vast new regulation of speech and content, I believe and our attorneys believe, by giving the FCC this authority.

I am a First Amendment guy. I have a degree in journalism. I believe in free speech. Sometimes, I don't like that speech. Sometimes, I find it offensive. The stuff that is illegal, you bet, we are all together on. But there are some interesting stories coming out around Europe and elsewhere where countries now, especially some of those in the more authoritarian parts of the world, are using this argument to crack down on political speech they find offensive.

I think we have to be very careful as Republicans, as Democrats, as all

Americans to try to find that balance between the obvious and the speech that really is about protecting the powerful. I think we can find common ground on that, but I do wince a bit that we are opening the door, or you all are with your bill, to giving the FCC the power to tax the internet, the power to regulate speech on the internet by going through a rulemaking.

I think that heads us in a little more dangerous direction and, meanwhile, does not address some of the issues I hear in townhalls. I have done 20 of them in every county in my district this year. When people begin to step up and have issues, it is not the ISPs they are complaining about, other than speeds and connectivity, that sort of thing. It is what is happening on some of the social media platforms, which are not addressed by this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit and it is at the desk.

Oh, my gosh, Mr. Speaker, in its current form, yes.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is actually pretty simple, and Members have a clear choice today on the floor: Are you for taxing the internet or not? That is the question.

As we have discussed at the Energy and Commerce Committee and again on the House floor today, Mr. Speaker, no one fully understands the implications of the underlying legislation. In fact, we have adopted amendments that the sponsor indicates aren't really necessary but do reinforce what is already in the bill. The scope of what it entails is still unclear, however, and the impact it could have on consumers is still uncertain.

Now, Democrats claim their bill permanently forbears from many of the heavy-handed regulations that the Federal Communications Commission could impose through this government takeover of the internet. It is important to note that nothing in the underlying bill would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from imposing similar regulations in the future or through other provisions in statute.

Now, my colleagues never could produce the list of 700 forbearances they claim the FCC engaged in that they are going to lock in statute today. That is what you are voting on, among other things. We never could get that list of 700 forbearances.

We have offered amendments in the committee and in the Rules Committee to ensure that consumers are protected and to ensure that the Democrats' rhetoric about their bill actually matches the substance. These amendments were all rejected on party-line votes in committee.

What is clear is that the Democrats want a government takeover of the internet. They want to open up the floodgates to a Federal, State, and local cash grab through taxation and fees that could be put on by local governments, State governments, and even the Federal Government.

Now, they will argue: Oh, no, there is nothing in the underlying bill, no, no, no. It does not touch the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

That might be true. It doesn't have to because the underlying bill opens the floodgates to section 201 and section 202 and other provisions that would allow local, State, and Federal governments to tax the internet. They can't do that today.

So, again, your vote is pretty simple: tax the internet or don't tax the internet.

Once you classify internet services under the utility-style services, tax administrators are going to do what they do best, and that is find a way to charge fees and taxes on this category since they understand how to get milk from every cow that walks by. Guess who is getting milked. It is the consumers.

So if you have any doubt, Mr. Speaker, just check your monthly phone bill. Your internet subscription is the new target. We are seeing all kinds of things in this bill. They are doubling, potentially, use of fees for the use of some facilities and poles, even altruistic-sounding ones on telecommunications relay services and 911.

But guess what. Just ask New York residents how much of their monthly 911 charges are being diverted from their 911 call centers. According to the Federal Communications Commission's 10th annual report to Congress on how States collect and use 911 fees, a staggering 90.35 percent of the money New Yorkers pay for 911 services gets diverted. For my friends in New Jersey, 77.26 percent gets diverted.

So these tax collectors know how to tax; they just haven't had the opportunity to tax the internet, but they may well get it under this bill if it were to become law.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is pretty simple. Republicans want to close the door on taxation of the internet. Will Democrats join us or not?

If you vote for the motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, you vote to close the tax and freedom door. A ``no'' vote leaves that door wide open for taxation of the internet.

Do you want your consumers to pay higher bills every month for their internet service or not?

Say ``no'' to higher taxes and fees and ``yes'' to this amendment to protect those who actually pay the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chair, Republicans and Democrats can agree more than they disagree on the issue of net neutrality parameters to protect a free and open internet for consumers.

The net neutrality bright line rules Republicans support are simple, and they are actually pretty easy to understand, Mr. Chairman: no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization--period. And no government takeover of the internet by Washington bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, for the last few years, Democrats have caved in to the idea that only putting unelected bureaucrats in charge of every facet of the internet is the answer. And they know what all Americans know: The bill before us today is opposed by the President, and the leader of the Senate says it is dead on arrival there, so it will not become law. This is the end of its journey.

They also know the internet grew up under very light-touch regulation, which Republicans favor and which even President Clinton favored. That is what allowed the bright innovators in our Nation's Silicon Valley and across the world to experiment and to invent the great services we all enjoy today. You see, they did not have to come to Washington, D.C., to some agency and get a permit or permission first. They didn't have to get second-guessed later, either.

Unfortunately, the regime that my friends across the aisle seek to saddle the internet with was only in place for less than 2 years. Less than 2 years, that is it.

Some argue that during that period, investment broadband build-out actually declined. We had testimony at the Energy and Commerce Committee from an internet service provider in rural Oregon who spoke to that very fact.

This bill, called Save the Internet Act, is another plank in their socialist agenda that would regulate the internet as if it were a monopoly utility under the title II section of the Communications Act of 1934. That is the law originally used to govern monopoly telephone companies in the 1930s.

This legislation imposes that heavy hand of Washington's regulatory bureaucracy over the single most vibrant and important driver of the economic growth in America and the world: job creation, better quality of life, information sharing. We call that the open internet that we enjoy today.

I would admit, no one fully understands the implications of this legislation, the scope of what it entails, and the impact it could have on consumers. There is much debate on this point in the committee.

Does this bill empower the FCC to dictate where and when new broadband networks can or must be deployed? We think it could.

Will this bill provide the authority for a government takeover and management of private networks? We think it could.

Would this bill allow government taxation of the internet? It could.

Could it lead to government regulation of speech on the internet? Yep.

And will this legislation limit the full potential of 5G and impede the development of the next wave of innovation in internet services? Most outside experts think it could.

So Republicans attempted to get to the bottom of these questions through our hearings and our markups. The answer to all of these questions was, regrettably, yes.

Now, we offered amendments, Mr. Chairman, at the full committee to close the doors to these and other powers that are granted to the Federal Communications Commission under this bill, powers that are completely unrelated to net neutrality. Every one of those amendments was rejected.

Supporters claim the bill locks into law more than 700 instances where the Federal Communications Commission forbore from taking action under title II, but supporters cannot provide Members of Congress with a list of those 700 forbearances--nope. We have asked; no list. The Democrats won't or can't even tell us precisely what they are putting into law if we can't see that list.

But we even offered an amendment to truly lock in this forbearance and prevent the FCC from imposing similar regulations in the future or through other provisions in statute, and that, too, was rejected.

We offered an amendment protecting the next generation of wireless networks, 5G, from the incompatible regulatory regime. That, too, was rejected on party-line votes.

So, disappointingly, the Democrats went back on an agreement I helped negotiate in each of the last two Congresses to relieve some of our rural internet providers from some of the most burdensome reporting requirements of the FCC's 2015 order.

Twice we passed that relief, and we did so unanimously in this House, and it was bipartisan, obviously. They more than cut the relief in half, putting costly bureaucratic reporting requirements ahead of small internet service providers investing in connecting Americans to high- speed internet services.

It doesn't have to be this way. It should not be this way. Republicans have put forth serious proposals. We put forth a menu of options as a starting point for true bipartisan net neutrality legislation.

I have introduced a bill that codifies the FCC's bright-line rules prohibiting blocking and throttling and paid prioritization for internet traffic, and that would require that ISPs, internet service providers, be transparent in their network management practices and prices.

Two of my Republican colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have introduced legislation that should also gain Democratic support.

Representative Bob Latta, who is our top Republican on the subcommittee, has legislation drawn from a proposal introduced in 2010 by the previous Democratic chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman of California.

If Democrats don't believe Mr. Waxman's plan is a good starting point, then Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers has introduced legislation that is drawn directly from a bill that passed in Washington State's Democratic-controlled legislature and was signed into law in 2018 by a Democratic Governor.

So what do all three of these proposals have in common? They are rooted in the shared principles of net neutrality that will protect consumers, but without putting unelected bureaucrats in control of the internet.

So I remain committed to a bipartisan solution, to preserving a free and open internet. I actually believe it is achievable, and I want to express to my friends on the other side of the aisle--and they are my friends--that our work and our efforts together are genuine and have been made in good faith.

The fact is we can permanently address blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. We could do so in a bipartisan way, and we all believe in open and free internet. We believe in net neutrality.

But net neutrality is not title II, near limitless government management of the internet. Net neutrality does not need the harmful, heavy-handed approach of title II. Net neutrality does not require a government takeover of the internet.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip of the House and a terrific member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am now privileged to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the ranking Republican on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, when it comes to 5G, Republicans had an amendment to keep 5G from being regulated by 1930s law called title II.

My friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to get into a big discussion about the huge regulatory door they are opening in section 201 and section 202 that allows the FCC to basically run amok with rules. They will claim that they are locking down what the FCC did in 2015 but, in fact, while they may close one door--although we don't even know all those 700 rules they are forbearing against that are going to go into statute, they can't even provide that list and this bill isn't going anywhere--they are opening this other authority-- unlimited authority, frankly--to the FCC to regulate all these forms of technology.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, again, I would say Republicans are for stopping any kind of action that throttles or blocks even paid prioritization on the internet. We share that common view of net neutrality.

But I would remind my colleagues that the legislation before us does not in any way provide any regulatory oversight over where you go when you get off the ISPs, get off that freeway, if you will, into places like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. They are great American companies. But what I hear from my constituents is they are concerned about pay prioritization, the security, the trust, the data, and all of that that the edge providers are a huge part of this ecosystem.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for his work on this amendment, and the Democrats for accepting this very thoughtful approach.

Americans are more and more concerned about the role that tech companies play in this Information Age. You

read about how content gets blocked, gets prioritized, or in some cases allegedly shadow banned.

We increasingly see these tech giants' inability to curb harmful and illicit behavior online while they monetize our personal information.

Now, these are incredibly important platforms as well, they are great American companies, but in most cases, they come about as close to a monopoly as I have ever seen.

Meanwhile, these edge providers get special protection under section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and they are not covered by the net neutrality rules that we are discussing today. They are not covered at all.

This bill does nothing to protect consumers from online abuses.

When Republicans were in the majority, I personally presided over hearings with the heads of some of the most important tech companies in America. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Jack Dorsey of Twitter came before our committee, sat inside the Rayburn hearing room, and talked to us for hours.

Our majority enacted landmark protections against online human sex trafficking that received the support of both sides of the aisle. We moved forward with that legislation. It is now law.

Just as the internet has not stopped working from rescinding the 2015 order, the internet has not stopped working because we enacted protections like FOSTA and SESTA. The internet still works.

But more improvements can be made in how we bring responsibility to this sector of the internet. We should review all participants in the virtuous cycle of the internet ecosystem, and that is the aim of this amendment.

The amendment calls on the Government Accountability Office to recommend solutions in dealing with edge providers, so they do not abuse their special privileges that the 1996 act gave them.

This is our third revision of the amendment to make it acceptable to move forward with the majority. I certainly had hoped we wouldn't outsource this responsibility to the GAO over the FCC, not to mention the Energy and Commerce Committee and Congress, but I certainly believe we must make progress on this issue for the benefit of all American consumers and for the health of the overall internet ecosystem.

Madam Chair, I want to thank Mr. Latta for bringing this very thoughtful amendment to the House floor, and I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who, I believe, agreed to accept it, if I heard that correctly.

The bill would codify the forbearance of 700 regulations into law, as you probably heard, Madam Chair. However, we just don't know what those 700 provisions that are being forborne upon are.

We have repeatedly asked for that information in the subcommittee, in the full committee, and every step of the way.

In fact, I don't think the authors of this legislation could tell us today what those 700 provisions are, although they get referenced from time to time. We are told that is really the underpinning and crux of this legislation, that, in all these areas of law, the FCC said, ``We are not going to, basically, regulate in this area,'' and they said there are about 700 of these.

So I think it does matter, if you are in business or just whatever you do in your life, to not know what the government--a pretty big, powerful government here in Washington--is going to enforce or not enforce or regulate or not regulate, and we don't know. But we are being asked today, in this bill, to enshrine in Federal law the whole 700 of these that the FCC--not this one, not a future one, we are told--would ever regulate in.

So we want the list. That is what this amendment asks for.

But wouldn't it be better when we legislate to actually know what we are legislating on before we vote? That is a pretty simple concept in good legislating, I think, and that is why we repeatedly asked for it; and, obviously, we have not been able to get it, so it is a bit of an irony.

Now, at the same time, they say don't worry because the FCC--you can trust us. The FCC is never going to regulate in this area. And, in fact, we are going to take these forbearances and lock them into statute and they can never come back and everything is locked down solid, boom. But that is like locking the front door of your house while you open the backdoor.

And the backdoor is another part under title II. This is the argument on the floor today. It is not about blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. You have heard us go back and forth, and we both agree. We can stop those bad behaviors, and we should, and that could become law. This bill will not become law.

But they open the backdoor and say to the FCC: You have got the right, under sections 201 and 202, to basically do anything you want through a rulemaking. So all the agency has to do is do a rulemaking, and basically they can do everything they have done before and more.

It is that uncertainty of regulation on the internet that we have referred to as the heavy-handed government. And this could be about taxing the internet, fees on the internet, et cetera, et cetera.

So I am glad we are doing this amendment, and I am glad the majority is going to accept it. I only wish it were a list before us in the Record today, Madam Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I appreciate that from my good friend.

If it were that easy to get that list, why didn't they get it for us from the Chairman of the FCC before we went through this whole process? We shouldn't have to vote on the bill to find out what is in it.

Mr. Speaker, due to a prior commitment to speak at an event in my district that was set prior to the late change in the schedule by the Majority, I was unable to attend votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 157--H. Con. Res 19 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 158--H.R. 1331.

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

Madam Speaker, the American people expect us to come to this floor with solutions, not political ``gotcha'' statements. The resolution before us in this week's Democratic dosage of attack on the President is just that. It doesn't do a darn thing to protect people with preexisting conditions; not one thing.

In the opening day of the 116th Congress, House Republicans brought a powerful, but simple, measure to the floor that called on this body to legislate on what we all agree needs to be done: locking in protections for patients with preexisting conditions.

Let me repeat. Republicans acted on day one of this Congress to protect Americans with preexisting conditions. Democrats blocked that.

In fact, I introduced legislation which has 45 cosponsors that protects people with preexisting conditions. Period. This is something I have fought for my entire time in public service. It would lock in existing protections for patients. It is before the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I have worked since the first day of this Congress to get this measure passed so that if the court decision that found ObamaCare to be unconstitutional, if that judge's decision is upheld, we want to make sure that our citizens who have preexisting conditions still have coverage.

The legislation I have sponsored would do that. Republicans and Democrats could get this done, and the question is: Why are we not voting on that today?

Instead, Democrats have rushed a resolution to the floor that has never had a hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee. So much for the talk about due process and regular order, Madam Speaker. No hearing, and it was rushed to the floor.

We only got to see it for the first time last Friday. So it is little more, in my opinion, than a political screed, not a public policy proposal. It will never go to the Senate. It is only here. Americans ought to know this, too: that the legal case working its way through the courts did not immediately end ObamaCare and will not affect insurance coverage on premiums for 2019.

Moreover, Democrat attorneys general and a couple of Republicans from intervening States are already defending the law in this case, and the judge's ruling has been appealed. This body has voted not once, but twice, to allow Speaker Pelosi to intervene in the case, and she has moved to do.

Just as my Democratic colleagues have repeatedly refused to let this House approve protections for people with preexisting conditions, they also know they could moot the lawsuit that they so decry today. All they would have to do is bring a bill to the floor and vote to repeal the individual mandate. That would turn off this lawsuit.

I am sure many on our side might be happy to join them in that effort. And if the Democrats didn't want to do that, they could vote to reinstate the individual mandate penalty. That, too, would moot the lawsuit. But we are not doing that either.

So they had policy options that could have been brought to the floor, three of them. Two would have ended the lawsuit that they decry today, and one would have given rock-solid security to those with preexisting conditions if the law is thrown out. There is no difference between us or among us about protecting people with preexisting conditions.

But, unfortunately, they chose not to actually legislate. Democrats control everything in this House. They decide what gets heard in committee or, in this case, not, and what is brought to the floor, or not. So it is clear they would rather play politics with healthcare and attack the President for political purposes rather than work with us on what could and should be bipartisan solutions.

A fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle must acknowledge is, for many Americans seeking coverage, healthcare costs keep getting more and more expensive. Last week, the Bend Bulletin, a newspaper in my district, reported on a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation about how insurance premiums are out of reach for many older, middle-class residents of our area, particularly in rural areas, including my home State.

They report: ``In central Oregon, for example, a 60-year-old individual with an annual income of $50,000 must pay at least $703 a month, representing 17 percent of his or her income, and that would only buy a bronze plan with a deductible of $6,500.''

We should be focused on helping people like that be able to afford insurance.

When the Affordable Care Act passed, Democrats promised people their insurance premiums would actually go down by $2,500. For many in America, that promise was false. For many Americans, healthcare costs, health insurance premiums, and, certainly, deductibles and copays have done nothing but gone up and up.

I was in Oregon over the weekend and held seven townhalls. Do you know what I hear about when it comes to healthcare? That insurance premiums are out of reach for too many of my constituents. And for those who cannot afford the premiums, many make difficult choices, from choosing which family members to cover, to changing jobs, or limiting income in order to continue to qualify for subsidies. This is a real problem. I think we can find a bipartisan solution if Democrats are willing to work with us on it.

But, plainly, the current healthcare system for too many Americans is not working. So we know we have more work to do, and I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree with us that we need to improve State markets that, in some part, were damaged by ObamaCare; that we should work together to lower healthcare costs and increase access to private health insurance.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, actually, there are some things we are working on, on drug costs. No President, in my memory, has ever leaned farther forward to get drug costs down for American consumers than President Trump. He has been an incredible leader in this effort, and we are going to see bipartisan work get marked up tomorrow in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

So on that topic of healthcare that is so crucial to survivability of American consumers, we can move forward. We have proven that.

But, meanwhile, the American people need to fully understand that the Democrats' one-size-fits-all, government-run plan itself would end the Affordable Care Act. You have to admit that. That is what your Medicare-for-all plan does.

They need to understand the $32 trillion price tag for the Democrats' alternative and the tax increases that would be necessary to go with it; the doubling of the individual income tax; doubling of corporate tax; and providers would have to take a 40 percent reduction in their payments.

Think of what the wait lines will be if that were to become law. Americans need to know that when the Democrats Medicare-for-all plan ends, employer-sponsored healthcare and your union plans you negotiated for, 158 million Americans who have health insurance today, will lose it tomorrow. They need to understand how they would have to wait longer for access to care than they do today.

And for my older friends, they need to understand the worst-case scenario. Seniors in America need to fully understand how this plan does away with

popular Medicare Advantage plans and Medigap plans and impacts this proposal would have on access to their doctors and an earlier bankruptcy of Medicare altogether.

So we would be better served today, and so would the American people, if we stood down, parked our partisan swords and shields, and worked together to solve the real problems Americans face when they go to pay their family bills.

I had lunch today with a couple from the southern part of my district, professionals. They said the cost of health insurance for them is so high they have had to make the choice not to have it.

This is going on every day in the marketplace, and I wish we could come together and spend our time on this House floor with a solution we could agree upon, because I think we could. But that is not what we are doing today.

It is like every week there has to be a resolution on the floor to condemn the President, something he said or did; not a policy proposal that will actually solve the Nation's problems. That is all you are dealing with today, another screed.

So let's work together. Let's come together as this Congress can, and as the Energy and Commerce Committee has had a wonderful record of doing over the years, and can going forward, to address healthcare and other issues. We can do that.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this partisan, political resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a couple of comments.

First of all, the President is very good to work with, and we worked in a bipartisan manner last Congress to address the Nation's opioid epidemic. That is a healthcare issue and a life-and-death issue. We passed 60 bipartisan bills that became law, and President Trump signed them.

We extended health insurance for children in America--the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program--for 10 years. That is twice as long as ever had been done before. We did that on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the President signed that. In my State, that is 122,700 Oregon kids and pregnant moms who are covered for certainty for 10 years under that insurance program. We reauthorized and fully funded community health centers. Now 240,000 Oregonians in 63 sites in my district get their healthcare from community health centers, Madam Speaker, and we did that at a fully funded record level.

Now, I just want to address something my friend, the majority leader who schedules bills on the floor, said about how we voted to repeal ObamaCare 65 times. What he kind of failed to mention is Democrats voted for not quite half of those, I would wager, because 25 of those votes became law, signed in large part, if not totally, by one Barack Obama, because there were problems in the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, however you want to describe it, that this Congress interceded on and in a bipartisan way voted to repeal ``ObamaCare.'' That is what the leader said, the 65 were all to repeal.

I would argue he probably voted for a bunch of those, because some of them passed unanimously in the House and Senate. Even President Obama agreed there were mistakes in ObamaCare. Our argument is we can fix America's healthcare laws going forward, and we should.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), who is a terrific new Member of Congress and of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I continue to yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I appreciate the gentleman's comments and share them.

This is H.R. 692, legislation that would guarantee Americans with preexisting conditions are not discriminated against. We have a lot of cosponsors on this, but we don't have a single Democrat willing to cosponsor a bill that would provide protection to Americans should this judge's decision be upheld. That is my argument today.

Why wouldn't we go ahead and schedule this, pass this, and move this to the floor so that if by some means this judge's decision is upheld, Americans with a preexisting condition would have coverage?

Meanwhile, why don't we start hearings on the Medicare for All proposal that Democrats have championed?

I have asked for those hearings from my friend. We have not seen that happen, and I know there is a certain dust-up in the press even today about alleging the Speaker's own staff person here may have been saying things or not about whether this is a good idea or not.

We ought to have a hearing on that because close to 200 million Americans might lose their insurance under this plan. So there is lots we should be doing here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope, before the Speaker of the House leaves, she will listen to this.

I was moved by her story about a young child with a congenital heart defect, but nobody is going to lecture me about the need to protect people with preexisting conditions or the need to repeal the lifetime caps.

Let me tell you a story about a young man with a heart defect. February 7, 1994, he was born in Portland, Oregon, at Oregon Health Sciences University, with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. It would require immediate surgery and multiple surgeries to try to save his life, or a complete heart transplant.

Tragically, that little boy did not live long enough to be flown to Loma Linda Hospital in California for that heart transplant.

His name: Garrison Daniel Walden. He died the next day.

Madam Speaker, nobody is going to tell me about the need to protect people with preexisting conditions. Nobody is going to lecture me about the need to get rid of caps on lifetime. My wife and I dealt with those issues directly, and I will always stand up for people who face similar challenges.

That is not what this is about today, and you can laugh if you want.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out Gallup just announced in a survey, 65 million Americans, 20 percent, put off treatment this last year and borrowed $88 billion to cover their healthcare costs. So we know there are problems out there we need to address.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), our resident pharmacist on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor and privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip of the House, and an incredibly important member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think we have had a very important debate today. I just wish that that debate had occurred on H.R. 692. This is the legislation that we should put in place in case the decision that the judge made in the Texas case that said ObamaCare was unconstitutional is upheld. If that is upheld, then there is going to be this problem, this gap that everybody is talking about.

This is an honest attempt to make sure there is a safety net for people with preexisting conditions, H.R. 692. You are welcome to cosponsor it. I wish we would move it. I always think maybe it is the old Eagle Scout in me that you are always supposed to be prepared and ready and that you help people.

I will tell you, Republicans also believed we should take care of people with preexisting conditions. Republicans also supported getting rid of lifetime caps on insurance policies and many of the other things you have heard about today, and we will continue to.

But we also led the effort to deal with the Nation's opioid crisis, made it

bipartisan, brought it to the floor, and it became law.

When seniors couldn't afford their medicines, it was Republicans, under George W. Bush, who put Medicare part D into law, and we had to fight Democrats to do that. Then seniors didn't have to go to Mexico or Canada or somewhere to get their drugs anymore. It has been highly successful. The costs are 40 percent or more less than what the Congressional Budget Office said it would be, and premiums have remained low. Now we need to do some modernization there.

Republicans also passed the longest extension of children's health insurance in the history of the country: 10 years, fully funded. Democrats voted against it over and over again on this House floor less than a year ago.

Community health centers, an incredibly important part of our network, I led the effort to get them funded at the highest levels ever. That funding is going to run out, but we don't have a plan from the Democrats yet. We are told we are not even going to have a budget on how to go forward. I think we can find bipartisan consensus there.

We are working together right now and will have a markup tomorrow in the Energy and Commerce Committee to address the drug issue and the cost of drugs. As I said earlier, I can't remember a President of the United States more engaged in getting better prices for consumers than this one. Donald Trump has led the country in an initiative to drive down the cost of drugs, and Congress is responding in a bipartisan way, and that is a good thing. We should do that here, Mr. Speaker.

The resolution before us today, if you are just watching or listening to my colleagues, is just that. it is a resolution. It will never leave the House because it is only for the House. It is the taxpayer-funded equivalent of a press release; that is all it is.

And we know that there are Members who never have accepted the outcome of the 2016 election, and no matter what the President says or does, they want to do a resolution or attack him. Yet the American people want us to come here and get our work done and stand up for them.

So rather than that resolution, I genuinely wish that H.R. 692, a bill that would protect people with preexisting conditions, was what we were voting on today. We stand ready to work with Democrats to get that done and provide that safety net that these Americans need.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments on my bill, H.R. 692, known as the Pre-Existing Conditions Protection Act of 2019.

As we've made clear today, Republicans have long believed that pre- existing condition protections are an essential part of our nation's health care markets.

These assurances give patients and families who have suffered from or are battling pre-existing conditions peace of mind. As a nation, we will not go back to the days when patients could be denied care or charged more than their peers because of their pre-existing condition.

The Pre-Existing Conditions Protection Act has 45 cosponsors and would lock in existing protections for patients.

It aims to achieve three important goals for patients: guaranteed access to coverage; a prohibition on pre-existing condition benefit exclusions; and, a ban on premium rating based on health status.

This bill reaffirms the commitment by House Republicans to uphold these three safeguards, commonly defined as the principle pre-existing condition protections in Obamacare.

And we can build on this foundation if necessary to adapt to potential changes in law or decisions from the courts in order to ensure our citizens who have pre-existing conditions are protected.

In the first few months of the new Congress, Democrats have already voted down multiple attempts to lock in a commitment to legislate on pre-existing condition protections. Instead, they'd rather score political points on an issue that we actually have agreement on.

This bill represents the desire of House Republicans to maintain these crucial protections for patients.

Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is really important legislation we are working on today. H.R. 1839, the Medicaid Services Investment and Accountability Act of 2019, includes short-term extensions of several key Medicaid programs that have previously passed the House on a bipartisan basis.

I know our staffs on both sides of the aisle put a lot of time and effort into this, and I thank them all. I especially want to draw attention to Caleb Graff, who brought his own audience with him today in the gallery, his parents and brother. He has worked very hard on this, and we appreciate it.

I thank my chair and colleague, Frank Pallone of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the partnership on this extenders package. Personally, I know a lot of us would have liked to have had these extended programs go out further to give beneficiaries and providers more certainty and more stability, and we will continue to put forth offers in good faith to work across the aisle to fund these critical parts of America's safety net.

However, we are here today up against a deadline, and I am pleased we were able to get at least through June and September, respectively, with these programs.

I am particularly pleased to see this package includes a short-term extension of the Excellence in Mental Health demonstration for my home State of Oregon. Both Oregon and Oklahoma were set to run out of funding at the end of this month, so this money will at least line them up with the other participating States whose funding expires at the end of June.

These eight State demonstration projects have shown promise as a way for community providers to expand access to treatment for mental and behavioral health, including addiction. As we continue our bipartisan work on the opioid crisis, which took more than 70,000 American lives in 2017 alone, Mr. Speaker, our behavioral health centers have the potential to provide real help. I have been encouraged to hear from providers in rural parts of my district, like Wallowa and Klamath Falls, about their success implementing this very program. I look forward to working on a longer term extension in the coming months.

The other Medicaid policies included in this bill are also very important.

The Money Follows the Person program is a demonstration program that helps transition individuals with chronic conditions and disabilities from institutions back into their local communities. That is where they can get the best care.

The so-called spousal impoverishment program protects seniors against the high costs of home and community-based services.

Finally, we are, once again, passing the ACE Kids Act here in the House, which was championed by our former colleague and chairman of the committee, Representative Joe Barton of Texas. It would improve the delivery of care for children with really complex medical conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan package of healthcare bills.

Madam Speaker, due to my attendance at a public lands management event with President Trump at the White House, I was delayed in returning for votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 121 on H. Res 156.

Mr. Speaker, due to my attendance at memorial services following the untimely passing of Dennis Richardson, Oregon's 26th Secretary of State, I was in Oregon and missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 106 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 107.

Mr. Speaker, due to my attendance at memorial services in Oregon following the untimely passing of Dennis Richardson, Oregon's 26th Secretary of State, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 104 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 105.

Mr. Speaker, as the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I enjoy the relationship and camaraderie I have with the Natural Resources Committee, and I want to thank the gentleman from Utah and my friend Mr. Grijalva, the chairman of the committee for once again bringing this measure forward affecting Crooked River Ranch.

The Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act is essential to saving lives in central Oregon. With another wildfire season just on the horizon, the people of Crooked River Ranch are really deeply concerned that they could become the next Paradise, California, and they are deeply concerned that their community could be turned into ash as wildfire feeds off the dense fuel loads that surround this community of 5,000 people.

They are there because of a lack of proper management to thin out the fuel loads because this area is in a wilderness study area. What we are doing is moving the boundary back about 800 acres. So at the BLM, it will all stay public. The BLM can come in and use mechanical treatment, literally, to reduce juniper and sagebrush so that the firefighters can come in and fight fire if they do get one.

We know what happens in this kind of terrain, the tragedy, the loss of life, loss of homes, the loss of community. There are 5,000 people out on a rim, if you will, in a canyon with only one way in and one way out. The fire chief has told me that if fire breaks out and it is the wrong kind with enough wind, he might not put his firefighters in there. So today we are going to save lives, thanks to your work.

Harry Ward, the fire chief, said this ``has created a dangerous environment and continues to threaten the people that live here.''

This legislation will adjust that WSA. The important public safety legislation will give peace of mind to the residents of Crooked River Ranch.

Last year, a fire only a few miles away burned 2,000 acres. It destroyed two homes in less than a day. The next fire season is not far away. We do not want to see images like this of homes turned to ash and lives destroyed in central Oregon, where we have a real opportunity to prevent that from happening thanks to this bipartisan legislation.

So I want to thank my Senators who worked on this. I want to thank Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Bishop for their work on this, and I appreciate its being brought in as part of the package of bills that now will go to President Trump, who I am convinced will sign it into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 583, the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement (PIRATE) Act, introduced by Reps. Paul Tonko and Gus Bilirakis. I want to thank Rep. Chris Collins of New York and former Rep. Leonard Lance of New Jersey for leading on this last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I've been around radio for most of my life. From working as a teenage janitor at my dad's radio station to spending more than 20 years as a radio station owner myself; in fact, I'm still a licensed amateur radio operator today. But you don't need that much experience to understand that protecting our public airwaves from illegal pirate radio interference is important for consumers and broadcasters alike.

The PIRATE Act gives the FCC additional tools to address the growing pirate radio problem and increases the penalties for bad actors. These illegal broadcasts deprive Americans of important programming provided by legitimate broadcast license-holders serving the public interest. And they can disrupt important public safety communications, including our nation's Emergency Alert System and critical aviation frequencies. In many cases, these pirate radio stations broadcast vile and vulgar content, which also harms consumers. By preventing illegal pirate radio operations, consumers are protected, and airwaves are kept free for legitimate broadcasts and public safety announcements.

Last Congress, this House passed the PIRATE Act by voice vote. I'd like to thank our former colleague Leonard Lance, who first authored this legislation last Congress, and my colleagues Mr. Tonko and Mr. Bilirakis for bringing this important bill to strengthen our public safety communications back to the House floor today. I urge its quick passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 501, the Poison Center Network Enhancement Act.

This important bill, introduced by Reps. Eliot Engel, Susan Brooks, Jaime Herrera Beutler, and Diana DeGette, reauthorizes the national network of Poison Control Centers.

The nation's network of poison control centers offers free, confidential, and expert medical advice and often serves as the primary resource for poisoning information. These centers help reduce Emergency Room visits through in-home treatment and their lifesaving assistance helps prevent unnecessary poisoning deaths and injuries.

Poison control centers are also essential to combating the opioid crisis because not only are these centers often the first resource people seek after an opioid overdose occurs, but they also collect real time data to alert impacted communities about opioid abuse and misuse.

Last Congress, Rep. Brooks led similar legislation, which passed this House by voice vote and was then included in the House-passed version of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, our broad legislative package to combat the opioid crisis. Unfortunately, after negotiations with the Senate, this language was not included in the final package that was signed into law.

Therefore, I'd like to commend Rep. Engel and Rep. Brooks for their continued leadership on this bipartisan legislation in helping to bring this bill to the floor today, and I urge passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 525, the Health Care Fraud Prevention Task Force Act.

This bipartisan bill--which I introduced with Chairman Frank Pallone, and which is supported by Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal and Republican Leader Kevin Brady--is a commonsense, bipartisan bill to improve the integrity of our nation's health care system.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) currently operates the Health Care Fraud Prevention Partnership--a voluntary collaboration between the federal government, state agencies, law enforcement, private health insurance plans, and anti-fraud associations. Together, this group works to detect and prevent fraud that threatens to undermine our nation's health care system. This program was created by the Obama Administration, and the Trump Administration has recommended codifying it into law. The bill before us today does just that.

Mr. Speaker, last Congress, the House passed this legislation by voice vote but unfortunately, we were unable to get this bill through the Senate and to the President's desk before the end of the Congress.

In fact, the House Energy and Commerce Committee had 148 bills pass the House last Congress, and 93 percent of them received bipartisan votes. I'd like to thank Chairman Pallone for continuing in that bipartisan spirit by helping to bring this bill back to the floor today.

I urge passage of H.R. 525.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Gary Neal, for his many years of hard work and dedicated service to the Port of Morrow, Morrow County, and Eastern Oregon. Gary has served as Port Manager for nearly 30 years, and I would like to pay tribute to his leadership in the region.

After five years as the Manager at the Port of Clarkston, Gary was hired in 1989 to manage the Port of Morrow. Since that time, and thanks to Gary's leadership, the Port has grown to be the second largest Port in the state of Oregon.

The Port now houses facilities for everything from value-added agriculture processing to high tech data centers. It serves the area as an economic powerhouse. In 2017 alone, the Port generated $2.7 billion of economic output and created nearly 8,500 jobs either directly or indirectly. From 2008 to 2013, the second worst economic downturn this country has experienced, the Port grew by 88 percent. All of this was driven by Gary's visionary leadership of the Port.

Despite the multitude of successes, Gary is humble about these achievements. While all the above mentioned statements are fact, Gary often refuses credit, and instead points to his commissioners and the community when explaining the success of the Port.

This focus on community is also evident in the Port's countless efforts to support community development projects. Whether it is parks, schools, or athletic facilities, the Port never hesitates to contribute to the growth of the community.

In addition to his commitment to the Port, Gary has served the community in many other ways. He currently serves on the board for The Bank of Eastern Oregon; Pacific Northwest Waterways Association; is past president of the Oregon Public Ports Association; served on the Infrastructure Finance Authority Board for the State of Oregon for eight years, and is an active committee member with several other groups.

This breadth of experience and involvement has made Gary a great asset to me on a variety of issues affecting the Port and the surrounding area. On everything from issues with the Navy's Boardman Bombing Range and the Army's Umatilla Chemical Depot, to river transportation and renewable energy, I've leaned upon Gary's experience and ideas as we navigated toward solutions.

As Gary begins his well-earned retirement, I know he is looking forward to spending time with his family. Gary and his wife Kathy have been married for 45 years and have two children. Their daughter Rochelle is married and works for Nike. Their son Ryan is taking over as the Manager of the Port of Morrow. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Congratulations to my good friend Gary Neal on a much respected and successful career. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him well as he pursues his next adventure.