Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 230, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 34) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 230, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 34) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to ``Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 34.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of S.J. Res. 34, which disapproves of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to protecting the privacy of customers of broadband and other telecommunication services.
I applaud Senator Flake's work on this issue, as S.J. Res. 34 was passed by the Senate last week. I also filed a companion resolution in the House.
The FCC finalized its broadband privacy rules on October 27, 2016. At that time, they assured us that the rules would provide broadband customers meaningful choice, greater transparency, and stronger security protections for their personal information collected by internet service providers, but the reality is much different.
There are three specific problems with which the FCC has gone about these rules. First, the FCC unilaterally swiped jurisdiction from the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has served as our Nation's sole online privacy regulator for over 20 years.
Second, having two privacy cops on the beat will create confusion within the internet ecosystem and will end up harming consumers.
Third, the FCC already has authority to enforce privacy obligations of broadband service providers on a case-by-case basis. These broadband privacy rules are unnecessary and are just another example of Big Government overreach. The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that Federal regulations cost our economy $1.9 trillion in 2015.
Since President Trump took office, Republicans have been working diligently to loosen the regulatory environment that is suffocating hardworking taxpayers.
Here is what multiple House Democrats said in a letter to the FCC last May regarding the FCC's privacy rules:
The rulemaking intends to go well beyond the traditional
framework that has guarded consumers from data practices of
internet service providers and ill-served consumers who seek
and expect consistency in how their personal data is
protected.
Further, FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright testified before Congress that the FTC has unique experience in enforcing broadband service providers' obligations to protect the privacy and security of consumer data. He added that the rules will actually do less to protect consumers by depriving the FTC of its longstanding jurisdiction in the area. Once again, these rules hurt consumers.
Incredibly, former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler referred to the internet as the most powerful and pervasive network in the history of the planet before these rules were even created. I found this really odd because it implied that the FTC regulation had indeed been successful and ought to continue, ultimately undermining his own rationale for additional FCC privacy regulation.
Now, there are a couple of myths that are going around that I want to take the time to dispel. Our friends claim there will be a gap for ISPs in the FCC privacy rules when they are overturned. This simply is false, and let me tell you why. The FCC already has the authority to enforce the privacy obligations of broadband service providers on a case-by-case basis.
Pursuant to section 201 of the Communications Act, they can police practices of the ISPs that are unjust or unreasonable. Sections 202 and 222 also protect consumers. It is already in statute. So I encourage my friends to read title II of the Communications Act. Also, the State attorneys general have the ability to go after companies for unfair and deceptive practices.
Third, litigation is another avenue consumers can pursue against ISPs for mishandling personal data. Service providers have privacy policies. If they violate the policy, guess what? They can be sued. I know Democrats will certainly understand that, as they have many trial lawyer friends, and I urge them to speak to the trial bar.
Fourth, the free market is another great equalizer. Can you imagine the embarrassment for an ISP that is caught unlawfully selling data? We have all seen the economic fallout from something such as a data breach. Companies have a financial incentive to handle your personal data properly because to do otherwise would significantly impair their financial standing.
To my Democrat friends across the aisle, the bottom line is this: the only gap that exists is in these arguments that you have made.
Consumer privacy is something we all want to protect, and consumer privacy will continue to be protected and will actually be enhanced by removing the uncertainty and confusion these rules will create, as the Democrats Rush, Schrader, and Green indicated in a letter to the FCC last May.
I also want to speak, for just a moment, on the edge providers because there has been some question about who has visibility into your data. Clinton administration veteran privacy expert Peter Swire offered a report in February 2016 titled ``Online Privacy in ISPs.''
ISP's access to consumer data is limited and often less than access to others. Swire found that ISPs have less visibility into consumer behavior online than search, social media, advertising, and big tech companies.
Swire's study found that, as a result of advancing technologies, the rise of encryption, and the various ways and locations individuals access the internet, ISPs now have increasingly limited insight into our activities and information online.
By contrast, however, so-called edge providers, like search engines, social media, advertising, shopping, and other services online, often have greater visibility into personal consumer data.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleagues across the aisle that, again, section 222 of the Communications Act covers the authority that the FCC needs. Traditionally, online privacy has been handled by the FTC. That is an authority that we have designated to them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.