Floor Statements

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the work of Mr. Sessions and the very powerful Rules Committee in bringing forward this rule, which I support. And I appreciate the work of our colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for introducing this legislation and working with me on some issues that are critically important to the people of eastern and southern Oregon, and, frankly, all across Oregon, especially in places like Milton- Freewater, Oregon.

In Milton-Freewater, citizens are paying hundreds of dollars more in flood insurance because FEMA came in and did a remap process, and it has put a real burden on the people of this community. The community has already set in motion a plan to fix the levees that FEMA says have fallen out of certification, to bring them back into compliance.

This bill could provide relief from the mandatory insurance purchase requirements--remember, you've got government sort of mandatory insurance hanging over these folks--while the community works to improve the levees. It also will force FEMA to factor in the actual protection afforded by existing levees regardless of their accreditation status.

Part of the problem we have out there in Milton-Freewater is you have a couple of agencies fighting over whether there should be brush allowed to grow on the levees. One agency says, oh, we need that for shade in the river, and the other says, no, that actually degrades the integrity of the levee. So we have Federal agencies fighting, and the people in Milton-Freewater get stuck with the bill.

These commonsense steps and others in the bill will provide the relief Milton-Freewater is in desperate need of. These changes will, according to one county commissioner from the area, benefit more than 2,000 people in the community.

Now down in southern Oregon, citizens in Jackson County have been adversely impacted by the recently redrawn FEMA flood maps that, as FEMA has admitted, used inferior mapping methods for some portions. Now the new maps force many homeowners into 100- and 500-year floodplains for the first time. Now that means they have to buy costly insurance when they may not even need it. It's not cheap either. While it runs about $400 a year for the 2-year discount period, premiums skyrocket after that to as

much as $25,000 annually, I'm told. Now, this bill would waive the burdensome mandatory insurance purchase requirements while the new maps are being appealed by homeowners. Homeowners shouldn't get stuck with this bill, this extraordinary cost, when it may, in fact, be a mapping error that even the agency admits they used inferior methods on.

This bill also improves the mapping process by reinstating the Technical Mapping Advisory Council, which will be better suited to take into account local factors during remapping, including natural topography and decertified levees that had not previously been considered.

This bill works to bring the National Flood Insurance Program out of the red while allowing communities more local input on their flood plans and time to adjust should they be designated as a high-risk area.

So I urge my colleagues both to approve the rule and the underlying bill so that we may reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program in a commonsense, fiscally responsible and bipartisan way.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Mrs. Karen Bounds of Hermiston, Oregon. Today millions of young people across the country are graduating and looking forward with hope and confidence to the next step in their lives. Whether it is college, service in our armed forces, or civilian employment, young adults are prepared for success by the caring and invested teachers they encountered throughout their education. Karen was one such teacher.

It is with a note of sadness that I honor Karen today, because I do so on the occasion of her retirement. For more than 20 years, she has taught essential courses including English, history, and government at Hermiston High School, which is located in my district. Future students at HHS will, regrettably, miss the opportunity to learn from Karen's knowledge and enthusiasm as well as her manifest passion for teaching and compassion toward her students.

Karen has never been one to call it a day after putting in the minimum number of hours; she has consistently volunteered her time and resources to enhance the educational opportunities available to her students. Many times over the years, for instance, Karen brought groups of exemplary students to Washington, D.C., to participate in the Close Up program, which gives high school students firsthand exposure to their nation's capital. She also dedicated much of her time to training Hermiston's successful Mock Trial team and escorting it to district and state competitions.

Karen never missed an opportunity to expose her civics and government students to the real work of government. I myself enjoyed the opportunity to address her class as a guest speaker. It will come as no surprise that the questions I faced from her students were pointed and informed. It was a pleasure to meet those students and witness their interest and curiosity about our system of government. It is more important than ever that Americans take an active and informed interest in their government, and Karen equipped her students with the foundation essential for doing so.

A California native, Karen met her husband of 45 years, Roger Bounds, while attending their alma mater, Stanford University. Karen and Roger raised four children and, as you might imagine, Karen's efforts on behalf of her students represent just a fraction of the commitments she has assumed over her years as a teacher, a mother, and an involved citizen. Between the kids' sporting and scholastic events, Karen found the time to participate in many community-service organizations, including as a founding director of the Desert Arts Council, which has brought live performances to Hermiston for almost three decades, and as a member of the vestry of Saint John's Episcopal Church.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledged a trace of sadness in marking Karen's retirement from Hermiston High School, but it is just a trace. I am delighted that she will have even more time in retirement to dedicate to her family, her friends, and her community in Hermiston, Oregon.

On behalf of that community, which I am pleased to represent, I thank Karen Bounds for her years of service and dedication to the students at Hermiston High School. While she will be missed, we wish her a long, productive, and enjoyable retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Mrs. Francie Moore Hansell. Children across the country are excitedly looking forward to their last day of school and summer vacations filled with friends and family. While they are focused on their vacation plans, they are also looking ahead to the next school year and wondering who their teacher will be. At Rocky Heights Elementary School in Hermiston, Oregon, students and parents alike will be disappointed when they learn that Francie will not be among next year's teachers because, after 26 years at Rocky Heights, she is retiring at the conclusion of this school year. Over her long career at Rocky Heights, Francie has launched more than 650 second-graders onto their next level of instruction.

Francie's service and commitment to her students, her school, and her community are to be commended.

Born in Prosser, Washington, Francie moved to Hermiston after her 1970 marriage to her Washington State University college sweetheart, Tyler Hansell. Together, Francie and Ty became integral members of the Hermiston community. Francie began her teaching career at Umatilla Middle School shortly after their wedding. After five years, she took a break following the arrival of their first child, Erin. Subsequently, Francie and Ty added four boys to their expanding family: Tyler Jr., Kenzie, Lucas, and Ruben. Raising her exuberant family and helping to run the family ranch took most of Francie's time and attention, but throughout she continued teaching Sunday school to the children of Hermiston Presbyterian Church. She also participated as an active member of the church choir and several other community volunteer organizations.

In 1985, Francie returned to teaching by joining the staff at Rocky Heights Elementary School as a second grade teacher. In 2010, Francie was awarded the coveted Crystal Apple award in recognition of her contributions as a devoted, accessible, and encouraging teacher for her many students.

Students always remember the special teacher who inspired them to believe in themselves and appreciate the unlimited power of learning-- for many alumni of Rocky Heights Elementary, Francie Hansell was that teacher.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hermiston community that I have the honor to represent, I want to commend and thank Francie for her many years of service and dedication to her students and community. While. Francie is retiring from teaching and as the grandmother of six (so far), I know that she will continue to dedicate herself to her family, friends, and her beloved community of Hermiston.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Randy Schoen, chief of police for the City of Medford, Oregon. Upon his upcoming retirement from the Medford Police Department on June 20, 2011, I want to thank Chief Schoen for his service to the state of Oregon as he begins a new chapter of his life.

Chief Schoen began his law enforcement career in 1978 with the Grants Pass Department of Public Safety and later joined the Medford Police Department in 1984, where he earned the rank of chief in 2007. Throughout his career, Chief Schoen worked tirelessly to implement cost-effective police services, stand as a steward for public resources, and serve and protect the citizens of Oregon.

As chief of police he often referred to the police department as ``the only 24 hour broker of social services,'' and throughout his police career he operated under the motto that no call is too small.

Chief Schoen's career has been a history full of force improvements and innovative practices that improved the efficiency of the force. As a sergeant early in his career, he observed that sworn police officers were delivering court documents, enforcing minor city ordinances, and serving subpoenas. To better allow sworn police officers to focus on fighting crime, he began Medford's Community Service Officer, CSO. The CSO program primarily hires college students who aim to become police officers. This program provides an opportunity for the police department to review, monitor, and train a potential police officer's commitment to service, character, and work ethic.

In addition, then-Sergeant Schoen also developed Medford's first K9 and SWAT programs. Over the years, the K9 team has grown to five dogs and the SWAT team has developed into an interagency squad. Both programs have won numerous awards and have been recognized as among Oregon's premier policing practices.

In 1999, Schoen was promoted to deputy chief of operations, where he worked on a strategic plan to shape the future of the Medford Police Department. His plan improved service, saved money, and created an environment in which officers were encouraged to pursue excellence and continued professional improvement.

Among the successful programs in Chief Schoen's plan was the Medford Volunteer Program, which now has over 40 volunteers. In 2009, the labor provided by these volunteers was conservatively valued at $100,000.

Within the police department, Chief Schoen has improved the evaluation process and the availability of career resources. Officers can now refer to a career guide to help them set goals towards achieving their desired position within the department. In addition, the department now has a mentoring program available to any employee committed to self improvement. Chief Schoen strongly believes if you recognize and celebrate great performances, it encourages others to improve themselves. For this reason, he has also instituted a rewards program that includes a payday bulletin highlighting outstanding performances, an awards banquet, and the Master Police Officer program, which rewards an exemplary patrol officer to serve as an assistance supervisor to the sergeant.

In 2007, Randy Schoen was appointed chief of police and has continued his distinguished career with the Medford Police Department. While the City of Medford and the department will surely miss his leadership, Chief Schoen has helped build the Medford Police Department into a stronger organization that will continue to improve thanks, in no small measure, to the strong foundation he leaves behind.

Mr. Speaker, on June 20, 2011, Chief Randy Schoen will retire from the Medford Police Department after 33 years of exemplary public service. I invite my colleagues to join me in wishing Chief Schoen all the best as he begins retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 28 World War II veterans from eastern Oregon who will be visiting their memorial next Friday in Washington, DC through Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon. On behalf of a grateful state and country, we welcome these heroes to the nation's capital.

The World War II veterans on this flight are: John Ansen, U.S. Army Air Corps; Lawrence Bannon, U.S. Army; Clinton Beauchamp, U.S. Navy; Roy Bunting, U.S. Navy; Albert Buscio, U.S. Merchant Marine; Jack Cooper, U.S. Navy; Claude Davis, U.S. Army; Robert Falley, U.S. Navy; Melvin Fuller Sr., U.S. Navy & U.S. Army; Harry Hartung, U.S. Army; Dayton Herron, U.S. Army; Leroy Hills, U.S. Army; Frank Jackson, U.S. Navy; Roy Janiec, U.S. Navy; Jack Kinsey, U.S. Navy; Paul Lesher, U.S. Army; Robert Maxwell, U.S. Army; Walker Nicholson, U.S. Navy; Glenn Plato, U.S. Navy; Henry Potts, U.S. Navy; Pete Stride, U.S. Army; Raymond Swee, U.S. Army; William Switzer, U.S. Navy; Collins Tucker, U.S. Army; Robert Warner, U.S. Army; Jack Wilson, U.S. Army; Garland Wright, U.S. Army; and Lawrence Zufelt, U.S. Navy.

These 28 heroes join more than 63,000 veterans from across the country who, since 2005, have journeyed from their home states to Washington, DC to reflect at the memorials built in honor of our nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, each of us is humbled by the courage of these soldiers, sailors, and airmen who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country. I will be hosting a special forum on Capitol Hill next week for these highly distinguished Americans, and I'm very eager to thank them all in person.

For the past 12 years, John Snider of Medford, Oregon, has been my district director. He's decided to move on now to pursue other opportunities and other careers. But to me, he was more than just district director. He was my mentor, he was my partner, and always my friend.

John Snider is a terrific man, a great fan of the Oregon Ducks, and he served three Members of Congress in this district as district director, including my most recent predecessor, Robert F. Smith.

He was born and raised in Medford. His roots run deep in the Rogue Valley. He is a guy's guy. He is a terrific man.

My current district office actually sits adjacent to the former Snider Dairy, which his family had and which is now part of downtown Medford.

John and his wife, Candy, currently live in the Rogue Valley, and John's daughter, Robyn, lives up in Grants Pass.

John graduated from St. Mary's High School and was its student body president. He graduated from the University of Oregon, and is a rabid, to say the least, Oregon Ducks fan. And my wife and I had the opportunity to be with John and Candy at the championship game in Arizona earlier this year. And among the 10,000 or 20,000 people at the reception ahead of time, we actually bumped into each other there, as fate would have it, and had a wonderful evening.

John served our country as a member of the United States Coast Guard and as president of the Rotary Club of Medford, where his attendance always spiked when I was the speaker. He was always so busy, he never got to his own Rotary Club; so they always fined him extra heavily when I was there because then he was with me and they had their opportunity to get at him.

John was my eyes and ears throughout the Second District, which is 70,000 square miles of eastern, central, and southern Oregon. We, I think, have traveled in about every conveyance possible, from a wagon behind a tractor to jet engine aircraft, single engine aircraft, twin engine aircraft. We've traveled in those airplanes, small, chartered, with others on our staff who didn't fare as well as John and I. They turned a little green and white and had problems at times. John and I always sort of traveled through it.

We have driven in snow and rain and ice and sleet, and everything we hear about postal officials, from one end of the district to the other. We have flown, we have driven, we have hiked, we have walked, we have been on boats and airplanes, and you name it.

And always at my side, John Snider. When the water was cut off to the Klamath Basin 10 years ago, John was there with me at the bucket brigade, where we took water symbolically out of Lake Ewuana and passed it through 15,000 people into the A Canal, symbolizing this horrible thing that the government had done to the farmers. That deeply affected all of us in the Second District, and especially John and me; and his commitment to those farmers and ranchers continues today, as does mine.

When it came to saving the Medford Tanker Base so that firefighting aircraft could make their circle around the Rogue Valley quicker rather than being shoved out to another hour's flight away, John was there day and night working with Commissioner Walker and others to make sure we could preserve that firefighting base in Medford. And we did, and it's made an enormous difference in saving lives and property.

When President Bush came out to both Applegate and Redmond, John was there helping organize the events ahead of time. And any of you who have been involved in a Presidential visit to your district, you know it happens quickly and you basically go 24/7, and things get changed in the middle of the night and requests come and go: We need a band; no, we don't need a band. We need a garrison-sized flag; no, we don't. John was there making sure it all happened.

John has served as one of my most important advisers, and is passionate about issues related to water and timber, small business development, and the people. He is well-liked by everyone who has ever met or worked with John Snider. He was a true leader in our community and remains so today.

So today, I rise to take the time in the House to honor and recognize my longtime--only until he decided to move on--district director, John Snider, to wish him and his wife Candy and John's daughter Robyn the very best in the years ahead.

We look forward to continuing our friendship and to working together for the betterment of our great State of Oregon, and always to cheer on the Oregon Ducks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contribution to Oregon by my good friend Tom Brian, and congratulate him on his retirement following 32 years of public service to our great state.

Tom's commitment to improving his community, state, and nation were readily apparent from his early days as a deputy sheriff, city councilor, and mayor of the city of Tigard, to his service as a state representative and 12 years on the Washington County Commission.

Tom has deep and enduring roots in Oregon that have grounded his personal and professional life in special ways. He treasures Oregon, where he and his wife, Joene, have raised their three children: Becky, Sarah, and Kevin.

Tom believes in making a difference--and he's backed up that belief with action. Over the last decade, Tom's vision as a commissioner deserves much credit for Washington County's robust job growth. His tireless collaborations with Intel, Solar World, and the many small businesses throughout Washington County have created a business- friendly climate that has made it a magnet for economic development.

Tom grew up in Monmouth, Oregon, where he attended Central High School and graduated from the Oregon College of Education in 1970, now Western Oregon University. After serving as a Polk County deputy sheriff from 1969 to 1973, an opportunity arose for Tom to join the Oregon Council on Crime and Delinquency, where he became its executive director until 1979.

In 1979, Tom started a career in real estate and also began his life in elected public office, earning election to the Tigard City Council. He later became the city's mayor.

Tom was recruited to run for the Oregon Legislature in 1988. Tom rose quickly through the legislative ranks and became the chairman of the Revenue Committee and served on the Ways and Means and Judiciary committees. Tom was an innovator and collaborative leader in the legislature. His hard work, steadfast dedication to Oregon, great wit, and solid character earned him respect from both sides of the aisle.

In 1999, Oregon's term limit law ushered Tom from the legislature after 10 years. Still committed to making a difference, Tom ran for and earned a position on the Washington County Commission. Tom served there for 12 years before retiring in January of this year as its chairman.

Mr. Speaker, Tom's leadership has been recognized with numerous awards and accolades, including the First Citizen of the City of Tigard, the Guardian of Small Business, Outstanding Service to Farm Families, and Transit Legislator of the Year, just to name a few.

Tom has served and continues to serve ably on a long list of boards, commissions, and philanthropic endeavors. As chairman of the Tigard Old Fashioned 4th of July Celebration, a board member of the Clean Water Institute, and a board member of Willamette Valley Vineyards, Tom Brian stays busy working to make life better in his community.

Tom is a husband, father, leader, and friend. He set a tremendous example for the many Oregon leaders he mentored over the years, instilling in them the core values of commitment to others, self- sacrifice, and decisive leadership.

Max Williams, one of Tom's close friends and a former state representative, said of him, ``You taught me not to be afraid of--or avoid--the difficult issues. Being out there `on the limb' was necessary because that is `where all the fruit is' when it comes to making meaningful and positive change.''

Tom took risks and he pushed for progress; because of that, he made a real and positive difference.

Today I rise to recognize my friend Tom Brian for all that he has accomplished and for his invaluable contributions to his community. I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking Tom for his service and wishing him and his family many great and healthy years ahead.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 289, I was detained in a bicameral leadership meeting with the Speaker. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 282, I was inadvertantly detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bachus was allowed to speak out of order.)

Moment of Silence in Remembrance of the Families and Victims of the

Recent Tornadoes in the Southern States

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 27 World War II veterans of Oregon who will visit their memorial here in Washington, DC, later this month. On behalf of a grateful state and country, we welcome the Honor Flight of Oregon.

The following are the distinguished veterans who will be representing the Honor Flight of Oregon: Elbert Bales, Donald Cameron, Kenneth Deacon, Henry Dorig, Robert Eddings, Noel Eng, William Grisso, Paul Potts, Eugene Sheffler and Harold Weigand, U.S. Navy; Ruth Waldruff, U.S. Marine Corps; Calvin Clayton, Stephen Graves, Warren Lancaster, John Lortz, John Mast, Laurel McClelland, Hans Running, Donald Smith and Don West, U.S. Army; John Couch, Calvin Hanscom, Jerry Johnson and James Johnson, U.S. Army Air Corps; Barbara Euler and Baldwin Thurman, U.S. Women's Army Corps; Shirley Marcy, U.S. Cadet Nurse Corps.

Mr. Speaker, these 27 veterans from Oregon are joining a camaraderie of over 63,000 veterans from across the country who, since 2005, have been transported from their home states to our nation's capital at absolutely no cost to them or their families, to visit and reflect at memorials built here in their honor.

The fact that these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines would uproot themselves from their homes and families and put themselves in harm's way for our country is very humbling. The debt of gratitude we owe them can never be repaid, for without their honor, courage, commitment, and--above all--sacrifice we would not be able to enjoy the freedoms we have today.

Please join me in thanking these Oregon veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their dedication, commitment, and service to this great nation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 200, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the joint resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a representative democracy, Federal agencies may impose regulations only to the extent authorized by the United States Congress, the

elected representatives of the American people. I introduced H.J. Res. 37, which enjoys bipartisan support, because Congress has not authorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the Internet.

H.J. Res. 37 is a resolution of disapproval filed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. It would prevent the agency from imposing the same or substantially similar rules through reclassification of broadband under title II of the Communications Act or through any other claimed source of direct or ancillary authority. If not challenged, the FCC's power grab would allow it to regulate any interstate communication service on barely more than a whim and without any additional input from Congress.

The FCC's claim that it can regulate the Internet under section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is not credible. The FCC has previously held that section 706 is not an independent grant of authority and the language of the section tells the FCC to remove barriers to investment, not create them. The FCC's reliance on section 706 could open the Internet to regulation by all 50 States.

Also flawed is the FCC's claim it can regulate the Internet under titles II, III and VI of the Communications Act because broadband has indirect impact on traditional services. Section 230 of the Communications Act makes clear that it is the policy of the United States to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services unfettered by Federal or State regulation. This regulation by ``bank shot'' is nothing more than a weak attempt to do an end-run around the D.C. Circuit Court's April 2010 ruling in the Comcast case that the FCC failed to show it had authority to regulate Internet network management.

The Internet is open and innovative thanks to the government's hands- off approach, as Democrat FCC Chairman William Kennard has explained, and I quote: ``The fertile fields of innovation across the communications sector and around the country are blooming because from the get-go we have taken a deregulatory, competitive approach to our communications structure, especially the Internet.'' There is no crisis warranting government intervention. The FCC even admits in its own order that it did not conduct a market power analysis.

Dr. David J. Farber, the grandfather of the Internet, says the FCC's ``order will sweep broadband ISPs, and potentially the entire Internet, into the big tent of regulation. What does this mean? Consumer needs take second place, and a previously innovative and vibrant industry becomes a creature of government rulemaking.'' From the grandfather of the Internet.

The order picks winners and losers and will threaten small providers that do not have the resources to send teams of lawyers to camp out at the FCC. How carriers manage their networks should be determined by engineers and entrepreneurs and consumers in the marketplace, not by as few as three unelected commissioners at the FCC.

My colleagues claim large broadband providers support the order--you will hear that today--but they only did so under the threat of being regulated like an old-fashioned telephone company under title II of the Communications Act. They are still concerned, and they say network neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.

AT&T's CEO has said, ``Regulation creates uncertainty.'' ``I would be lying if I said I was totally pleased with it,'' and, ``I'd like to have had no regulation, to be candid, but that wasn't going to happen.''

The CEO of a large cable association has said that ``there could certainly be an adverse economic impact by chilling the willingness to deploy these new services.'' The CEO of a large wireless association has said that some uncertainty over FCC implementation remains and ``increased regulation tends to depress rather than accelerate investment.''

Now opponents of H.J. Res. 37 will also criticize the Congressional Review Act process, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the authors of the CRA, has said the disapproval process is--and I quote the Majority Leader of the Senate--``a reasonable, sensible approach to regulatory reform.''

You see, the CRA was dually enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. And despite their recent criticism, even my colleagues themselves have co-sponsored disapproval resolutions in the past, including Mr. Waxman, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Markey, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Dingell. They cosponsored H.J. Res. 72 in 2003. And Mr. Waxman, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Doyle, Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms. Baldwin co-sponsored H.J. Res. 79 in 2008. Both, by the way, were resolutions disapproving of FCC rules.

So my colleagues complain that amendments are not in order, but that is because the language of the Congressional Review Act itself dictates the specific language of the disapproval resolutions, and to allow amendments would frustrate Congress' very intent in providing a straight up-or-down vote on whether to disapprove just these types of overreaching agency rules.

My colleagues say that instead of considering this resolution we should be debating comprehensive legislation to authorize the FCC to regulate the Internet. Then why did they refuse our repeated requests last Congress to hold hearings on whether such intervention is warranted? Why did they wait until November before proposing their own legislation--so close to the end of the last Congress there was no time for reasoned debate? And why did they single out only certain segments of industry for regulation and refuse to require a market power analysis? It is all too convenient that they wait until after the rules have been adopted and are vulnerable to legislative and judicial reversal before engaging.

A vote against this resolution is simply a vote that will allow the FCC to adopt substantially similar rules under title II when the FCC loses in court, something even network neutrality advocates like Free Press say is likely. Indeed, the FCC still has a proceeding open to do just that.

So for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 37.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one point. This is not partisan legislation. We have two Democrats as co-sponsors of the legislation, and I anticipate it will actually have a bipartisan vote, as it has had in the past.

I now yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

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

Obviously, my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, walked in a little late because we just heard that all those big companies he railed against are opposed to this resolution we have before us. So if anybody is doing the bidding of those companies, it must be the Democrats, who have rattled off as part of their argument all those very companies that he just railed against who are opposed to us.

I now yield 2 minutes to the vice chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, the last time I checked, it's like the Government of Iran controls their Internet. That's what we are trying to avoid here is government control of the Internet.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Madam Speaker, could I just get a time check for each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is the gentlewoman addressing the bill before us? Is this germane to the bill before us? I question the relevance to the issue before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think this points up two things. When you have government-run microphones on the Internet, you're going to have a problem. And, second, we are for open and free microphones; so they are welcome to use our podium as well.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

What is the relevance?

Will the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to answer.

I am not part of that negotiating team. And I don't think you are, and I don't think Ms. Eshoo is or Mr. Waxman. And so those who are negotiating are negotiating, and we're taking care of this business.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that there's confusion on their side of the aisle, because at one end they have a Speaker that says we're doing the bidding of the big oligarchies, these big companies, and on the other hand that all those companies oppose what we're doing. I'm trying to figure out just which side they're on. We're for an open Internet that is vibrant as it is today because it's not regulated by the government.

I would now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart).

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

First of all, I think it's very interesting that the last speaker pointed out that in Iran and in China they can shut down the Internet. That's because the government controls the Internet. That's what Republicans are trying to stop from happening here, in part because we think

it's wrong, in part because we know that the FCC does not have the legal authority to take this action. That's why we're doing that.

But beyond that, it's a bad economic decision, because we had a Harvard MBA testify before our committee, ``Over time, the order represents a direct transfer of wealth from broadband access providers to those whose content rides over the network. That means that it provides those who ride the network with a strategically vital financial weapon to use against broadband providers who in many cases are their competitors.''

You see, this is picking winners and losers. The Democrats do not want to extend the net neutrality rules to the search engines and others who ride on the network. They don't want to do that. They want to pick a winner and a loser. They're the ones who are siding with the big companies in this case. We're the ones on the Republican side who are siding with keeping the Internet open and free as it is today, that has allowed it to flourish and grow, that has allowed incredible technology and innovation to take place. We want it open and unfettered from government regulation in terms of the management of the Internet.

Further, we do not believe that the FCC has the legal authority to regulate in this area. When they have attempted this before, the D.C. Circuit Court has said, you did not prove, FCC, that you had legal authority and struck them down. And if they are able to get authority using section 706, they may well have opened the door to every State regulator in the country regulating the Internet. That's bad for innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.

To my dear friend and colleague from Maryland, I'm actually surprised he has the time to come to the floor given the status of negotiations, I'm sure they're taking place as we speak, but we appreciate him coming to the floor.

Let me make a couple of points. First of all, the continuing resolution they put forward in this context is more of the status quo spending that just keeps government growing. We're saying no; we are to do better than that for the American people. We need to reduce wasteful Washington spending. We need to create jobs in the private sector.

We came here to cut back on the deficit and not put an ever- increasing, intolerable, unsustainable--frankly, immoral--budget deficit and debt on the next generation, our kids and our grandkids. We did not come here to do that. We came here to cut spending.

I have not yielded.

I appreciate that.

The point here, though, is this: We would not be here today if the Democrats in the last Congress had bothered to take up a budget and pass it or even vote on it. That is the first time since the 1974 Budget Act was put into law that I believe the House didn't consider a budget. It's not that the House and Senate have always agreed on a budget, but at least they've always voted on a budget. And the Democrats, under Speaker Pelosi and my friend from Maryland, could not bring or did not bring a budget to the House floor for even consideration in the House.

Now I was in small business for 22 years, I've served on various boards, and if you failed to bring a budget and pass a budget at a city council, a county commission, a corporation, you would be tossed out. But in the Congress--well, I guess they did get tossed out in November, but they didn't do a budget. And then, you didn't fund the government through the fiscal year we're in today. You only funded it into March, and then it was left on our doorstep when we took the majority. That's not the first time that's happened, and it has happened over time, but we came in and said, okay, we won, we assume the responsibility to govern. And we passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through the rest of this fiscal year--it would have funded our troops and everything else--and cut $61 billion in spending. And that still resides in that august body across the Capitol where they can't seem to act.

When that didn't work, we came back with another continuing resolution, cut $2 billion a week. That resolution was passed in this House--I think with bipartisan support--went to the Senate, was passed there, signed by the President. We continue to negotiate because we're not here to shut down the government. We're here to cut the government spending and get back toward a balanced budget and create jobs in the private sector.

When they couldn't get a deal, we passed another continuing resolution. We cut more--another $2 billion a week, we're up to 10 now. That passed this House, it went over to the Senate, it became law.

And then when we could get nothing else back from the Senate, yesterday we brought forward a resolution to make sure our men and women in uniform, who are fighting for our freedom across this globe, and their families here at home, would get paid through the end of this fiscal year. And we also cut spending. We cut the spending we cut in the first resolution--that's still residing in the Senate where they can't act--and we sent that over to the Senate where it sits. Now the first thing we hear from the President is, I'm going to veto it. And the Senate says, oh, we can't take that up. Well, why not? We passed it here, and we did so in a bipartisan way. And it's over there.

Republicans have acted responsibly to the will of the American people. We have said time and again we will govern, and we will govern responsibly. There is no blank check here anymore. And we're going to follow the rules.

point of order

That is why I am insisting on my reservation of a point of order because we are not going to violate the House rules. The motion is not in order because it violates clause 7--as I'm sure the gentleman from Maryland knows--of rule XVI of the Rules of the House. It is not germane to the resolution before us.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be permitted to file its report to accompany H.R. 1217 at any time through Monday, April 11, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 p.m. on Monday next and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, April 12, 2011, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.