Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Madam Speaker, nearly 7 million Pennsylvanians showed up to vote in the 2020 elections. They cast their votes for Democrats and Republicans up and down the ballot, including the entire U.S. House delegation, the entire State house, half of the State senate, and other State and local races.

Since the election, there have been allegations of widespread election fraud in Pennsylvania; but, remarkably, the 20 suits filed by the Trump campaign, Pennsylvania Republicans, and others challenging the results in Pennsylvania have never claimed that there was voter fraud.

Perhaps that is because attorneys could lose their licenses when they make unsubstantiated claims in court. That is where the rubber really meets the road.

So if these lawsuits didn't claim election fraud, what did they claim?

Most of the legal challenges to the Presidential election in Pennsylvania question relatively small numbers of ballots that were allegedly tainted by technical violations. Even assuming that all of these ballots had been cast for Joe Biden, throwing them out wouldn't have changed the result of the election.

Now, one exception is the lawsuit filed by one of our colleagues from Pennsylvania, Kelly v. Commonwealth, which would have thrown out all the mail-in votes cast in the 2020 general election on the grounds that Act 77, the State law allowing those votes, was unconstitutional. That suit would have disenfranchised 2\1/2\ million Pennsylvanians. Let's let that sink in, 2\1/2\ million Pennsylvanians would have had their votes nullified.

Now, I want to provide my colleagues with some background about the State law at the heart of this challenge. In 2019, the Republican- controlled State legislature approved Act 77, a bipartisan bill to reform the State's election laws, which instituted no-excuse mail balloting. Act 77 was supported almost unanimously by Republicans in the State House and State Senate. In fact, it was unanimous in the State Senate and all but two Republicans in the State House.

Moreover, once this Act was passed, Act 77 had a 120-day period where challenges could be filed against the Act if people thought it was unconstitutional. Well, 4 months went by, nobody files a challenge. On June 3, Pennsylvania had their primary under this new system. Nobody challenged the primary election. It was only challenged in November, when Republicans didn't get the result they wanted at the top of the ticket. Not surprisingly, this case was dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

Another exception is Texas v. Pennsylvania. They asked the court to reject the results of the Pennsylvania Presidential contest in Pennsylvania and several other States, disenfranchising tens of millions of the voters. Seven Republican members of the Pennsylvania U.S. House delegation signed the U.S. House Republican brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania.

While I feel compelled to point out to my colleagues that the same voters who sent them to the 117th Congress cast their votes for the President by marking the very same ballots, which were read by the very same ballot scanners and monitored by the very same election workers. Yet our colleagues who signed the brief only want to invalidate the Presidential votes. This is illogical and inconsistent, colleagues, and I am pleased to note that the Supreme Court rejected it as well.

The fact is, the election has received unprecedented scrutiny in the courts. I believe it is irresponsible and undemocratic to argue today that the U.S. Congress ought to relitigate the 2020 Presidential election and second-guess the will of the voters in multiple States, the decisions of numerous State and Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and the counts and recounts conducted by State election officials.

There were 20 lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania challenging aspects of the Presidential election. In 19 of them you got laughed out of court. The one case you won affected roughly 100 votes. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won by over 80,000.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Mr. Henry Parham, who is believed to be the last surviving African American combat veteran from D-day. Mr. Parham served in the 320th Barrage Balloon Battalion, the only African American combat unit to land in Normandy on June 6, 1944.

Men from the 320th were in the first waves to land on Omaha Beach that day. They had the vital task of preventing enemy aircraft from attacking the beaches where men in equipment were pouring ashore. Their balloons prevented enemy planes from making effective attacks, but the balloons also made excellent targets for enemy fire.

Back then, the Army, like most of American society, was segregated. Nevertheless, these African Americans risked their lives to serve their country, even as Blacks faced Jim Crow laws and racist violence back home.

Needless to say, the German bombs and bullets didn't discriminate. Two thousand Americans died on Omaha Beach that day, including men from the 320th. Many more were wounded.

I want to recognize Henry Parham from the 320th Barrage Balloon Battalion for his heroic service to our country. I am very proud to represent Mr. Parham in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Girls of Steel Robotics team for qualifying for the FIRST World Championship for the 9th year in a row. They received a Wildcard slot as a Regional Finalist, and they also won the Gracious Professionalism award at the 2019 Greater Pittsburgh Regional FIRST Robotics Competition in California, PA. Gracious Professionalism celebrates outstanding demonstration of FIRST Core Values by working together both on and off the playing field.

The students are proud that their robot qualified them to attend the FIRST World Championship, which has been held in Detroit since 2018. I think that the remarkable accomplishment of continuously making it to the Championship speaks volumes about the dedication these young women have in pursuing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) careers, sustaining their team, and spending thousands of hours collectively doing outreach in the community. Girls of Steel are often referred to as the home-town favorite robotics group and continue to be featured in videos, print media, and blog posts.

The Girls of Steel attended the FIRST World Championship in Detroit, Michigan at the end of April--one of the largest competitions of its kind, sometimes referred to as the Super Bowl of Smarts--where they competed against top teams from all over the world.

FIRST, which stands for ``For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology,'' is an organization dedicated to engaging our students in STEM fields. Hundreds of thousands of students gain practical, team- based engineering experiences through FIRST every year.

As a founder and co-chair of the Congressional Robotics Caucus, I believe competitions like these are important opportunities for our young people to explore potential careers in STEM. I've witnessed firsthand the incredible economic growth and development that these fields have brought to my home district, and I strongly believe that these fields are crucial to our nation's future prosperity.

The FIRST Robotics Competition allows students to apply creativity and critical thinking in the demanding and competitive field of robotics, all while instilling a strong sense of pride

in participants. I want to commend organizations like FIRST for their important work encouraging young people in these pursuits.

Sixty-seven young women from 8th through 12th grades associated with more than 20 schools located in and around the City of Pittsburgh represent this year's Girls of Steel team, and in recognition of their hard work, intelligence, and teamwork, I would like to mention each of these inspiring young ladies by name. They are: Alexandria Adams, Aeryn Anderson, Ciara Anderson, Anjali Angal, Ariella Avigad, Somdatta Basu, Meghna Behari, Justine Bennett, Ashnaa Bhide, Gracie Cain, Rosy Chen, Maya Cranor, Elizabeth Crookston, Claire Cummings, Isha Das, Maggie Davis, Haruka Doi, Riley Doyle, Anna Fedele, Alexandra George, Susanna Getty, Teadora Gildengers, Samhita Gudapati, Sofia Heller, Kristina Hilko, Amanda Hulver, Anna Jablonowski, Caroline Kenney, Janise Kim, Isabelle Kowenhoven, Mary Laird, Alice Liu, Sally Liu, Eve Mango, Alisha Mattson, Lauren Michaels, Abigail Miller-Peterson, Sreyashi Mandal, Lakshmi Mulgund, Abbey Murcek, Anna Nesbitt, Jimin Oh, Norah Ostin, Ariana Pasquella, Lehka Pendyala, Emma Prokop, Grace Raida, Lauren Raida, Ananya Rao, Sedona Rocher, Rachel Sadeh, Brittany Sadej, Swathi Senthil, Vivian Shao, Lauren Shovlin, Kavya Soman, Aditi Srivastava, Anna Staresinic, Tara Staresinic, Aditri Thakur, Langley Turcsanyi, Prishti Tyagi, Anja Vogt, Zoe Woon, Ziya Xu, Julia Young, and Qingqing Zhao.

Additionally, I want to convey my deep appreciation to the faculty and staff of Carnegie Mellon University's Field Robotics Center, who have mentored the Girls of Steel since 2010. Because of their efforts, more young women have experienced real-world technological challenges and learned from some of the nation's best at solving these problems. These experiences will certainly benefit these young women in the future.

I congratulate the Girls of Steel and wish them all continued success in their academic and professional endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Honorable Fred Keller, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome our new colleague representing the 12th District of Pennsylvania, Fred Keller.

Mr. Keller comes from Kreamer, Pennsylvania. He comes to us from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, where he served five terms.

Before his first election, Mr. Keller worked for 25 years in a factory producing kitchen cabinets, working his way up to manage the plant.

He also started his own real estate business. His record of hard work and commitment to public service will surely serve this Chamber well.

I am looking forward to working with you, Mr. Keller; and on behalf of the Pennsylvania delegation, I want to welcome you to the House of Representatives.

It now gives me great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I yield to our newest colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Fred Keller.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the artistic ability of a young student from my Congressional District, Caden Ferita from Westinghouse Arts Academy.

Caden is the winner of the 2019 18th Congressional District of Pennsylvania's High School Art Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery.'' Caden's artwork, an oil painting entitled ``Rene,'' was selected from a number of outstanding entries in this year's competition. In fact, 28 works from 10 different schools in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District were submitted to our panel of respected local artists. It's a real tribute to Ms. Ferita's skill and vision that her work was chosen as the winner of this year's competition.

Ms. Ferita's artwork will represent the 18th Congressional District of Pennsylvania in the national exhibit of high school students' artwork that will be displayed in the United States Capitol over the coming year. I encourage my colleagues as well as any visitor to Capitol Hill to view Ms. Ferita's artwork, along with the winning entries from the high school art contests held in other Congressional Districts, which will be on display in the Capitol tunnel. It is amazing to walk through this corridor and see the interpretation of life through the eyes of these young artists from all across our country.

Lillianne Taylor from Pittsburgh CAPA was awarded second place for her multi-media composition ``Gabby.'' Caleb McCoy from Woodland Hills High School received third place for his untitled drawing with marker and pen. Nicholas Altland from Upper St. Clair High School was awarded fourth place for his photograph entitled ``Over the Mon,'' and Hayley Shevitz from Pittsburgh CAPA was awarded fifth place for her charcoal drawing ``Mystery-Pop.''

Honorable Mention Awards were presented to works by Mackenzie Freed- DePastino from East Allegheny High School, Taya Tassone from East Allegheny High School, Kyrie Allshouse from Pittsburgh CAPA, Francesca Lojacono from Pittsburgh CAPA, and Ashleigh Smith from South Allegheny High School.

I would like to recognize all of the participants in this year's 18th Congressional District High School Art Competition: Brian Genovesi, Khin Lwin, Anthony Provident, Bethany Rechtorik, Bridget Stehle, and Jenna Velgich from Baldwin High School; Ariana Guerra from Bethel Park High School; Amelia Bademosi from Cornerstone Christian Preparatory Academy; Makenzie Freed-DePastino, Madisyn Montgomery, Marissa Riggs, Mandy Ruffing, and Taya Tassone from East Allegheny High School; Sarah Artuhevich from Penn Hills High School; Kyrie Allshouse, Elais Freeman, Francesca Lojacono, Hayley Shevitz, and Lillianne Taylor from Pittsburgh CAPA; Kaelin Rebholz and Ashleigh Smith from South Allegheny High School; Nicholas Altland and Tori Keller from Upper St. Clair. Caden Ferita, Angelina Kukic, and Pheobe Richardson, from Westinghouse Arts Academy; and Caleb McCoy from Woodland Hills High School.

I would like to thank these impressive young artists for allowing us to share and celebrate their talent, imagination, and creativity. The efforts these talented students have put into expressing themselves in a powerful and positive manner are deeply inspiring. I hope that all of them will continue to utilize their artistic talents, and I wish them all great success in their future endeavors.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

It is interesting to hear my good friend talk about 5G. When the majority talks about government control of the internet, they should turn their eyes to the White House and the President's plan to nationalize 5G.

The only socialist plan to take over the internet is the one coming from the Trump administration and their plan to nationalize 5G. I have documents for the Record talking about numerous articles where the Trump administration proposes to nationalize 5G, and the plan coming from the administration to secure 5G.

The gentleman keeps saying that this bill is a government takeover of the internet, but the only government takeover I see is the one that the White House keeps proposing.

Now, the amendment that is before us would ask the GAO to examine how the FCC assesses competition, including making recommendations on how to improve their assessment and how to increase competition in these vital markets. This is a key question for so

many consumer protections online, not just net neutrality.

This bill is about consumers, small business, and democratic values like competition. This is a good amendment. I support this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would say to my good friend, Mr. Walden, and he is my good friend, that if you think the President's plan to nationalize 5G is a bad idea--and I kind of recall the gentleman saying that. As recently as yesterday, the administration in its campaign is still talking about nationalizing 5G. Perhaps it is time to get on the phone or to stand up here on the House floor publicly and talk about some action that we can take as a Congress to make sure that the White House doesn't nationalize 5G.

With the amendment before us, bridging the digital divide is one of the great challenges the FCC faces today. The Save the Internet Act is going to give the FCC new tools to address that digital divide.

Although broadband technologies keep getting better, they are not reaching everyone, especially those in remote areas, like Native Americans living on Tribal lands. These populations face unique challenges in getting high-speed internet access service. That is why it is critical that the FCC focus on identifying and addressing obstacles to getting high-speed internet onto reservations and Tribal lands.

This amendment would instruct the FCC to work more closely with Native Americans to help connect Tribal lands. This amendment is particularly important because of the Trump FCC's illegal attempt to reduce support for the Lifeline program to Tribal communities. This decision was ultimately found to be illegal by the courts. However, it is critical that the Commission talk and listen to the people who understand the problems and represent the communities lacking broadband.

Mr. Chairman, I support this commonsense amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Save the Internet Act will ensure net neutrality and help bring the internet to parts of the country that don't yet have it.

I would say to my friend from Oregon, the bill is crystal clear on rate regulation. The language clearly prohibits any rate regulation, so rural folks need not worry about that.

Through the act, the FCC will have the authority to accelerate deployment of broadband by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition. And, furthering that goal, Congress requires that the FCC report on the state of broadband deployment nationwide.

The results, every year, are particularly important because they are used to figure out where to best direct funds for rural broadband deployment. And to name a few, that is important for consumers, schools, libraries, and hospitals that they get the connections they need.

And we need to know that the FCC's data is accurate. We expect the FCC to use its best efforts to ensure that the data is up to date and error free before releasing their reports.

Recently, the traditional diligence of the FCC has been called into question. According to news reports, the FCC is preparing a report that contains data that an internet service provider has told the FCC is wrong. The carrier reported that it provided high-speed broadband to everyone in 10 states when its actual service area was a fraction of that.

This serious oversight seriously alters the state of broadband deployment in this country and calls into question data used by this administration to justify other policies.

Despite that internet service provider coming forward, the FCC has not even corrected a press statement that was, in part, based on that erroneous data entitled ``America's Digital Divide Narrows Substantially.''

As the expert agency regulating broadband, it cannot knowingly put out false information that misleads the public. This amendment will help remedy that. That is why I support it, and that is why I think we should all vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We keep hearing this talk about how investment plummeted after the 2015 order. Well, we all know that is not true, and the proof is in the pudding.

Investment data shows an aggregate increase in investment following the FCC's February 2015 vote to adopt the open internet rules compared to the 2 years following the repeal of the 2015 order, when investment actually decreased.

The same is true of most ISPs' individual investments. The majority of publicly traded broadband providers reported investment increases after the 2015 order was adopted. In the first year following adoption of the 2015 rules, census data showed a $3.5 billion jump in capital spending in data processing, hosting, and related services.

Moreover, the repeal of the 2015 order did not result in a use boost to infrastructure spending, as the Trump FCC asserted would happen. Instead, investment actually decreased.

This amendment before us is important. Though many of our constituents enjoy easy access to high-speed broadband, there are still many pockets of this country that aren't served by high-speed broadband. Or, as my good friend Peter Welch from the great State of Vermont says about the promises of 5G: ``Some of us have no Gs.''

The Save the Internet Act is going to restore net neutrality throughout the country, and it is going to give the FCC key authorities that buttress critical programs, such as the Connect America Fund that provides money to build high-speed broadband out to areas where it would not be economic to do so without the funding.

The Save the Internet Act also gives internet service providers nondiscriminatory access to rights of way and poles, which will facilitate build-out in rural areas.

Unless we connect our rural communities, the people in them cannot fully be active participants in the 21st century economy. They are missing out on education and workforce opportunities that are so often now delivered online. That is why much of the rural broadband deployment in this country is funded by the Connect America Fund.

This amendment would require GAO to examine these issues and to provide a report with recommendations about how the government can promote build-out to hard-to-reach or otherwise overlooked communities. This is such an important policy issue and such an important part of saving the internet.

I look forward to joining my colleagues in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I would say to my friend, I think what we are trying to do in these two amendments is, we need the FCC to get on this as soon as possible, but we need the GAO to continue to look at this. But I understand what the gentleman is saying.

Look, we know these maps are wrong. I mean, nobody is arguing about that, and it is unacceptable. What the gentlewoman's amendment would do is ask the GAO to do a report to examine the current mapping processes for both wireless and wired line services.

They would also be asked to identify what FCC programs and actions rely on maps and to make recommendations on how the FCC could produce more reliable maps.

I think this is an important amendment. I support it, and I urge all my colleagues to support it also.

Mr. Chair, I would ask the Congressman, my understanding of his amendment is that it simply restates what is already in the 2015 Open Internet Order, namely, that nothing in this bill would prohibit ISPs from blocking unlawful content and that nothing in this act adds any additional requirement or right for an ISP to decide what is lawful content?

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for clarifying that. I support the gentleman's amendment.

Since this is the last of the amendments to be offered, I wanted to take this time to thank my friend and the Republican side for a vigorous debate not only in our committee but here on the floor.

Mr. Chair, I would be remiss if I didn't thank our staffs, namely Alex Hoehn-Saric, Jerry Leverich, Jennifer Epperson, AJ Brown, Dan Miller, Kenneth Degraff, and my telecom staff, Philip Murphy. Without him, I wouldn't sound as intelligent as I do on these matters. I thank all of the Democratic staff. They worked very hard, and they deserve our thanks.

Mr. Chair, this has been a vigorous debate, as it should be, but we are coming to a close now, and I thank my friend for his participation.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, pay close attention this. This proposal is completely unnecessary. Let me tell you why.

The bill simply restores the 2015 Open Internet Order that the FCC adopted and was upheld by the courts. Nothing in that order could or did give the FCC the authority to modify, impair, or supersede Federal law. To the contrary, the order said specifically that it did not impose new taxes or impact the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act is Federal law. Nothing in this order allows the FCC to modify, impair, or supersede Federal law.

This is a complete nonissue, nothing you need to be worried about; and, frankly, it is just a last-ditch effort to delay and confuse people on net neutrality.

Now, let's get down to what this bill really does. What this bill does, basically, is three things:

First, the three we all agree on: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. Republicans and Democrats say we all agree with that.

But, colleagues, that is not the end of the ball game, because we have already seen discriminatory practices by ISPs that aren't covered by blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

What my friends over here are saying is, sure, the three things we caught them red-handed on that they have already pled guilty to, we are not going to allow that anymore, but any new discriminatory behavior, any new unjust or unreasonable behavior, we don't want a cop on the beat to police that. We don't want to be able to give consumers the right to go to the FCC and get relief from that. It is like locking the front door and leaving the backdoor wide open.

Now, let's talk about another thing, too.

Two years ago, the Trump FCC repealed the Open Internet Order. What did it replace it with? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Crickets. They did nothing. It is the Wild, Wild West. Let the ISPs do anything they want and consumers be damned. That is what they did.

For 2 years, they could have brought their so-called version of light-touch net neutrality to the body. They controlled the House. They controlled the Senate. They got a Republican President. They did nothing because they don't believe in net neutrality, and they don't believe in protecting consumers.

Well, I have got news for my friends on this side of the aisle: You are not in charge here anymore. This is a new day. We didn't come to Washington, D.C., to represent companies. We came here to represent the American people.

May I tell my colleagues, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, 86 percent of the American people say they want these rules restored.

Colleagues, this is your first and only chance to tell the American people where you stand on net neutrality and whether you believe that the FCC should protect consumers. This is your chance to be on the right side of history, on the side of the angels, and on the side of the American people.

Let's defeat this motion to recommit and pass this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1644, the Save the Internet Act.

This bill comes to the floor after more than 18 hours of consideration by the Energy and Commerce Committee over the course of hearings and markups since the start of this Congress.

During that time, we have heard from consumer advocates, minority and underrepresented communities, rural broadband providers, small businesses, innovators, entrepreneurs, and millions of constituents, all calling for the restoration of net neutrality rules.

In addition, polls show that more than 86 percent of all Americans, whether they be Republicans, Independents, or Democrats, opposed the Trump FCC's repeal of the protections that this bill reinstates.

People around the country care deeply about a free and open internet because it is critical for so many communities and sectors of our economy.

This legislation will do three things:

First, it restores bipartisan, commonsense net neutrality protections and puts a cop back on the beat to protect consumers, small businesses, and competitors from unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory practices by internet service providers.

Second, this bill gives the FCC the authority to protect consumers, now and in the future, through forward-looking regulatory authority.

Third, the bill restores the FCC's legal authority to support broadband access and deployment programs through the Universal Service Fund.

These programs pay for the deployment of broadband in rural communities through the Connect America Fund and support access for low-income families, seniors, and veterans through the Lifeline program.

The Save the Internet Act codifies the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order and permanently prohibits the FCC from applying provisions on rate setting, unbundling of ISP networks, or levying additional taxes or fees on broadband access.

This legislation that we are considering here today charts a new course for net neutrality and would put in place 21st century rules for a 21st century internet.

I look forward to advancing this legislation out of the House and, ultimately, through the Congress so that we can restore these essential protections for all Americans.

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

Mr. Chair, what my friend refers to as a takeover of the internet we call protecting consumers, and that is what we are asking the FCC to do.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

I find this pretty humorous that the Republicans want to talk about government takeover of the internet. The only person I know who has proposed publicly to take over the internet is the President of the United States when he said he wants to nationalize 5G.

Maybe you guys need to take a little trip over to the White House and prevent that little government takeover of the internet.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), a valuable member of this committee.

Mr. Chairman, my friends keep talking about the government takeover of the internet. I am glad to see that they are finally taking a stand against

the foolish 5G nationalization proposal that the Trump administration can't seem to stop talking about.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would submit that we are listening to the public and our constituents. Eighty-six percent of all Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents-- support what we are doing here today. It is the Republicans who are standing up for a very small number of ISPs in this country.

It gives me great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Chair, we keep hearing over and over again that same mantra, ``government takeover of the internet.''

What the Republicans call the heavy hand of government is what is actually protecting consumers. If they want to stop a government takeover of the internet, then they had better talk to the White House: ``Trump apparently wants to control 5G in a `state-run' socialist twist to American capitalism.'' That is where you need to take those concerns about the government takeover to.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), vice chair of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Madam Chair, I would say to the gentlewoman that we know that net neutrality rules don't affect internet speed or internet investment.

And who says that? The CEOs of all the internet companies when they are talking to their Wall Street investors.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

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

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

This debate can be broken down very simply. There is agreement on the three bright lines. So Democrats and Republicans agree: no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization. But that is where my friends on the Republican side stop.

Democrats understand that, already, we see behavior by ISPs that isn't covered by those three bright lines, in the areas of zero rating and interconnection. There has to be a cop on the beat to protect consumers.

This bill is very basic. It says we are going to outlaw the three bright lines. We all agree with that.

The only things we do in addition to this are two other things:

Number one, we restore the legal underpinnings for the Connect America program, which helps rural broadband, and the Lifeline program, which helps our seniors, veterans, and low-income families in the country. We make it easier for pole attachments to make rural deployment of broadband easier to do, to facilitate that. So we take care of rural America in the bill.

Then we also say there has to be someone to look out for consumers if, somewhere down the road, an ISP finds a new way to have some unjust or unreasonable or discriminatory behavior. Someone has to have the ability to say: You can't do that, and, if you continue to do that, we are going to levy a fine or we are going to take action against you.

That is called consumer protection. What my friends over here want to do is simply take the three bright lines and say, okay, we will enforce that because they have been caught red-handed doing that. Everybody knows they have pled guilty to the blocking, the throttling, and the paid prioritization. We will outlaw that. But if they find some new, novel way to game the system and disadvantage consumers, we don't want anyone to be able to stop that kind of behavior.

Madam Chair, it is sort of like locking your front door and leaving the back door wide open. That is what the Republicans would have us do, if we would agree to their so-called compromise that they are putting forward.

Let me tell you something. I didn't come to Congress to work for internet service providers. I came to Congress to protect consumers.

And you are not fooling Americans. Eighty-six percent of Americans, be they Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, did not want to see the Pai FCC, the Trump FCC, repeal these net neutrality rules. There was overwhelming testimony during the rulemaking from more than 20 million people asking the FCC not to take this action. This is an issue not only amongst millennials but all throughout our population.

You have been hearing it on your telephones, too. That is why you all want to say you are for something. You stand there and say we are for a free and open internet, but what you are for is allowing these ISPs to figure out new ways to game the system and making sure there is no cop on the beat, the FCC, to be able to regulate that. That is why we are never going to agree until we sit down and protect consumers in this kind of bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

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

I appreciate this debate. A couple of points I would like to make as we close. I think people need to understand that, 2 years ago, when the Trump FCC decided to repeal the net neutrality rules that were in place, what did they replace them with? How did they protect consumers when they decided to repeal the net neutrality rules put in place by Chairman Wheeler during the Obama administration? I will tell you what they did. They did nothing--nothing, no protections, the Wild, Wild West. The only thing a consumer could look forward to was, if one of these ISPs violated their terms and conditions, they might be able to go over to the FTC and ask for relief.

Ask the California firefighters how that worked for them when they were in the middle of trying to put out these devastating fires in California and came up on their data cap and had no recourse. Ask them if they think that was unjust or unreasonable behavior.

For Republicans to stand here and say that they care about net neutrality rules when they had 2 years when they controlled the House and the Senate and the White House to put one of these three bills they like to talk about on the floor--because they controlled the floor to pass the bills, to

pass it in their Republican-controlled Senate and give it to their Republican President to implement net neutrality rules to protect consumers. What did they do? They did nothing--nothing, crickets, silence.

Now Democrats control the House of Representatives. We said that it is important to all Americans, and all Americans regardless--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--wanted to see those net neutrality rules that were repealed restored. So what we have done is we have taken that 2015 open internet order and we said let's put this into law. Let's put this into statute so that no future FCC Commissioner can come there and change this.

We have forborne on 700 regulations that were in title II. You keep hearing this: We are putting the heavy hand of title II, Ma Bell, 1934 rules on the internet. That is not true. All of those provisions of title II were forborne. They are not part of this bill.

What did we keep in title II? We kept the consumer protections in sections 201 and 202. We saved the legal underpinnings that make it possible to do the Connect America Fund and the Lifeline Program. We put a cop on the beat so that, for future bad behavior on the part of the ISPs, there is someone there to say you can't do that, and if you try to do that, we can take action against you.

Now, I ask you, what do the ISPs have to fear from that? If they are not acting in an unjust or an unreasonable or a discriminatory fashion, they have nothing to worry about.

I would ask my friends, what unjust and unreasonable and discriminatory behavior do you think they should be allowed to engage in?

Well, I have news for you. Just the three bright lines, that doesn't cut it anymore. We have already seen behavior that is discriminatory that isn't covered by those three bright lines. If there is no cop on the beat to enforce that on behalf of consumers, then it is the consumers who are the losers.

We are not going to let that happen. The American people don't want that to happen. People of all stripes have said, loud and clear, that they want to see commonsense, bipartisan net neutrality rules put into place.

When I say bipartisan, the only place it isn't bipartisan is here in the House of Representatives, not out in the country. The Senate passed a similar bill last year in their CRA with 52 Members. It was bipartisan.

We tried to put that CRA on the floor last year, and the Republican majority wouldn't put the bill on the floor so that we could have a vote on it. We tried a discharge petition to see if we could get the bill on the floor, and not a single Republicans helped us pass the discharge petition so that we could have a vote on net neutrality.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Any chance that Republicans had to have no regulation on the internet, that is what they have been about when they have been in power in this body.

Madam Chair, it is a new day, and it is a new House of Representatives, one that listens to the will of the people, the citizens of America who have said loud and clear that they want to see these rules put back in place.

To all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is your chance to be on the right side of history. This is your chance to be on the side of the angels. I ask all my colleagues to vote for this bill, vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1644 and restore net neutrality rules for all Americans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The Save the Internet Act is narrowly focused on ISPs as the gatekeepers to the internet. They control the networks, so they have the ability to shape and control traffic as it moves over their network.

Edge providers play a different role in the internet ecosystem and are not in the same class as internet service providers.

There are numerous cases of documented abuses by ISPs going back several years. I am sure that is a big part of why net neutrality has such overwhelming bipartisan support. Even 82 percent of Republicans oppose the FCC's 2017 rollback of the rules.

Now, that is not to say that there are not problems on the edge-- there are--but that is not what this bill is about.

So in the spirit of bipartisanship, we are going to accept this amendment. We hear the concerns of Mr. Burgess and our friends on the other side of the aisle, and we want to work together with them to address this.

We appreciate Mr. Burgess' willingness to work with us to find a compromise on this issue.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we know the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the edge providers, and we know currently, since there are no net neutrality rules, the only recourse people have is to the FTC. Chairman Pai assured people that the FTC can fully police net neutrality.

Well, here is a nice article: ``FTC gives ISPs green light to block applications as long as they disclose it.''

So, there it is, ladies and gentlemen, these protections which you want to send over to the FTC, they have just now told the world that as long as they put it in their terms and conditions, they can block applications if they choose to do so.

The gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Oregon, both friends, bring up valid concerns about edge providers, but this isn't the bill where it belongs. But we do want to work with them, and I look forward to engaging both of them and my good friend, the ranking member of the Communication and Technology Subcommittee, as we go forward to look into that part of the ecosystem.

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

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

Madam Chair, the overwhelmingly popular Save the Internet Act would restore the commonsense and much loved net neutrality protections adopted by the FCC's 2015 net neutrality order.

These protections were comprehensive in addressing bad behavior, but

targeted so as not to be overly burdensome. The agency made sure that dated and unnecessary provisions of the Communications Act and certain implementing regulations did not apply to broadband internet service. In fact, the 2015 order says that more than 700 regulations would not apply to broadband.

While the industry apparently didn't need the FCC to tell them what wasn't in the order, our Republican colleagues have raised a concern that more clarity is needed.

Madam Chair, I don't remember the last time, however, that legislation was brought to the floor and concerns were raised about what the legislation didn't do and where we asked for an enumerated list of provisions the legislation didn't apply to.

That being said, I support greater clarity. The gentleman's amendment would require the FCC to publish a list of all the provisions and regulations that were forborne by the 2015 order.

Importantly, this wasn't an issue at all when these net neutrality protections were in place for nearly 3 years, but our Republican colleagues have raised a concern, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, we will support this amendment.

Given that we are taking affirmative steps to address the concerns, we hope they will be persuaded to join us in supporting this immensely popular commonsense legislation.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I am thrilled to get the gentleman this information. I know the FCC has it and will be happy to share it with him.

It is kind of amusing that he wants to know what regulations we aren't putting on business. I thought they were the guys who didn't like any regulations on business. Now they are dying to know where are these 700 regulations that aren't going to be put in the bill.

What is important about the bill is not what is not in the bill, but what is in the bill. That is what they need to focus on. This is kind of like Geraldo Rivera trying to open Al Capone's safe. They are just dying to know what those 700 regulations are.

And guess what. We are going to pass this bill and vote with them on this, so that desire to know what isn't in the bill will finally be satisfied. I am sure that their Chairman, Chairman Pai, the current Chairman of the FCC, will be more than happy to hand them that list once we pass this bill. I will be happy to do that for our friends.

We on the Democratic side support the amendment and intend to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Madam Chair, reclaiming my time, I was just amazed that he didn't have the list already. That is his good friend over there, and I am sure a quick phone call on his point would have satisfied this curiosity he has.

Madam Chair, I am happy to entertain this. I intend to vote ``yes'' on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Chair, during our committee's hearing on net neutrality in the Save the Internet Act, we heard testimony about the importance of a free and open internet to vulnerable populations and groups underrepresented in the traditional media. The message was clear:

Net neutrality protections are critical to vulnerable populations.

Net neutrality is critical for minority communities to have their stories told. It is a lifeline to connecting with job training, employment searches, and family connections.

Net neutrality is important for ensuring that small businesses or aspiring writers can use the internet to find customers and fan bases across the country or across the globe.

Madam Chair, this is an important issue, and I fully support the gentlewoman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado), my friend.

You know, the FCC does need to do more to support the funding of stand-alone broadband, particularly for rural areas, and this amendment will help push them to do that.

The Save the Internet Act would restore many of the key authorities the FCC can use to fund rural broadband deployment in the future. It is really hard to understate how important that is for rural America, and this amendment would help us do even more.

This amendment would simply require the GAO to study the benefits of stand-alone broadband plans and how we in Congress can increase the availability of these stand-alone plans in rural areas of the country where broadband is so hard to come by.

I support this amendment. It is a wonderful addition to a bill that would restore net neutrality to everyone across this country and help support rural broadband build-out as well.

Madam Chair, I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

The important protections we are discussing today will only be a toothless tiger if the FCC is not taking action to investigate potential violations and taking enforcement action where it is warranted.

The great thing about this amendment is that the FCC will have to come back to us 1 year after the Save the Internet Act is adopted and tell us what kinds of investigations and enforcement actions they have undertaken.

It also shines a light on whether the FCC follows through with its enforcement actions. As we just heard, recently, it was reported that even though the FCC fined robocallers $208 million, it only collected $7,000.

Remind me not to use them as my collection agent.

Rules aren't a deterrent unless there are real consequences. This amendment will help Congress determine if the FCC is truly doing its job and better facilitate the critical oversight role of this body.

I fully support this amendment, and I look forward to getting this report.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

The Save the Internet Act is going to ensure that net neutrality throughout this country is ensured, and, hopefully, it is going to bring the internet to all parts of this country. It will do that, in part, by restoring the legal authority of section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, which gives the FCC authority to take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.

The FCC's 477 data is critical for getting an accurate picture of broadband deployment in this country, but the methods of collecting that data are outdated, and the results are sometimes rife with errors.

This amendment calls upon the FCC to submit a report within 30 days of enactment, detailing how it plans to evaluate and address problems with the collection of that form 477 data.

We have already seen how inaccurate Commission data can lead to poor policy choices, whether it is holding up the Mobility Fund II proceedings, which will fund the deployment of wireless broadband in rural communities, or rendering inaccurate the Commission's recent draft broadband deployment report, which drastically overstated deployment in this country due to lax and faulty data collection methods.

I fully support this amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on H.R. 1644.

Mr. Speaker, more than 500 Pennsylvanians are murdered with guns each year, causing untold suffering and tearing our communities apart. Pennsylvanians are crying out for commonsense legislation to stop the bloodshed, legislation like H.R. 8, the bill before us today.

Now, nobody thinks that universal background checks would eliminate gun violence, but the facts suggest that they would reduce it.

In 2017, the Pennsylvania State Police ran over a million background checks on would-be gun purchasers. The vast majority of purchases were approved within a few minutes. But 13,000 were stopped, and the background checks led to the arrest of 150 wanted fugitives and the arrest and conviction of 500 other individuals for illegally attempting to obtain a firearm. Those background checks put some bad guys in jail, and they probably saved some lives as well.

Let's help our police enforce the laws that keep guns out of dangerous hands. Vote for the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act.

This legislation contains language from H.R. 1320, the Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy Act, or NUKE Act, that I introduced in the House with my colleague, Representative Adam Kinzinger. The NUKE Act passed the House in September, and I am glad to see that the Senate has also supported these important priorities for the nuclear industry.

I would like to thank Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse for introducing this legislation in the Senate, and I want to thank my friend, Representative Kinzinger, for working together to advance the NUKE Act in the House.

This legislation is very timely, as the nuclear industry is facing pressure from a variety of factors. Ensuring clarity and reliability for the industry will be an important step, and I believe this legislation accomplishes those goals.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I would like note that my colleague, Representative Gene Green, a cosponsor of the NUKE Act is retiring at the end of this Congress. I want to commend Mr. Green for his service to the people of Texas, and I want to wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, the Honorable Susan Wild, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. Speaker, as dean of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation, it is my great pleasure to welcome our newest colleague.

A longtime resident of Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, Susan Wild has a distinguished legal career in private practice as well as in public service as Allentown's city solicitor. She also has an impressive record of community involvement and leadership, serving on boards of a number of local nonprofit organizations.

I am happy to welcome Representative Wild to this body, and I look forward to working with her and our colleagues in the Pennsylvania delegation to serve the Commonwealth and this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the senior Republican member of the Pennsylvania delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to our newest colleague in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Susan Wild.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.