Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Bowling Green State University Hockey team for earning a bid to the 2019 NCAA Men's Hockey National Championship Tournament. Their admittance to this year's ``Big Dance'' follows a 29-year absence and marked the program's 10th appearance.

While this year's campaign saw the Falcons' fourth consecutive 20+ win season and fifth consecutive winning season, it was the first tournament appearance in nearly three decades. The team ranked in the top ten in scoring in the country, while also maintaining an impressive defense--ranking second in goals allowed in the NCAA.

The Falcons made the school, the city, and the entire community proud. Once again, congratulations to the Falcons on their NCAA Tournament appearance. Great job, Bowling Green Hockey.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Genoa High School Comets for winning the Ohio School Athletic Association

Division III State Dual Title and Team Title. This is the second consecutive year in which the Comets are state champions in both events.

In the state dual meet, the Comets fought back after losing three out of their first four matches to secure a 52-23 victory over Milan Edison. Individually, Oscar Sanchez, Julian Sanchez, Dustin Morgillo, Kevin Contos, and James Limongi all won state titles. The Comets cruised to the title by setting a D-III record by scoring 162 points.

The Genoa community should be proud of the effort from these student- athletes and the dedication, hard-work, and mental fortitude it takes to compete at such a high level. Congratulations to Coach Bob Bergman and the Comets on the state titles. Well done, Genoa wrestling.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1644, the government takeover of the internet act.

This is not about net neutrality. If this was about net neutrality, we would be operating under the longstanding bipartisan premise that net neutrality would be achieved without title II.

Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I agree that Congress needed to codify basic internet protection principles, such as no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. The net neutrality bill I introduced is based directly upon the proposal from former Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, which would prevent internet service providers from engaging in much of the discriminatory behavior the majority is concerned about. It would do so under title I.

Both former Republican and Democratic Federal Communications Commission Chairmen have also recognized that net neutrality can be resolved without vastly expanding the FCC's power under title II.

It is important to recognize the difference between title I and title II. The internet is currently regulated under title I, which means it is considered an information service. Besides the 2 years the FCC's 2015 order was in effect, the internet has always operated under title I, since its infancy.

Chairman Wheeler put the internet under title II rules that classify broadband as a telecommunication service. These rules were created in the 1930s for the monopoly telephone systems and, obviously, do not fit on an innovative engine that has thrived on minimal government involvement.

Although the exact framework of net neutrality has been a bipartisan issue these past 10 years, we are at a point where Republicans and Democrats are aligned on bright-line principles to preserve a free and open internet. Rather than push through purely partisan legislation drafted by a group of unelected bureaucrats, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1644, so we can engage in a truly bipartisan process on net neutrality and resolve this issue once and for all.

There is a menu of legislative options on the table. Each of these net neutrality bills would ensure that the FCC is a cop on the beat to keep the internet free and open from discriminatory conduct by ISPs.

As acknowledged by H.R. 1644's sponsor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the bill does not preserve all aspects of a free and open internet because it does not address blocking and prioritization done by edge providers.

It also isn't clear if the bill addresses ambiguous definitions from the 2015 order for specialized services or recognizes the unintended consequences in innovations like advanced network slicing capabilities in 5G.

The bill also does not protect small businesses. With over 3,000 ISPs in our country, most of which are small or very small, we should make it a priority to shield these businesses from onerous regulations.

I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee that would do just that. It would have allowed small ISPs to focus better on expanding their networks and serving their customers. This amendment was based on a bipartisan compromise made in the 114th Congress and the 115th Congress that unanimously passed the House and afforded small and often rural ISPs predictability.

My Democratic colleagues supported the 5-year exemption and 250,000- subscriber limit last Congress but seem to have forgotten their statements about the need to allow small ISPs to provide broadband access rather than being bogged down with these regulations.

We have seen broadband investment and innovation decline during the time the internet was regulated under the framework that H.R. 1644 would establish. This has been verified through studies, but also in a recent Energy and Commerce Committee hearing when a witness who owns a small ISP in Oregon testified on the hampering effects the 2015 order had on his own business. While we can't quantify lost investment, we do not know the advancements in technology we have missed out on due to limited resources directed toward innovation.

On the point of not knowing, we still do not know the 700-plus regulations that H.R. 1644 would permanently forbear from either. Before we permanently lock in anything, I believe Congress should know exactly what we are locking in. We have pressed the majority for the list multiple times and have not received it. That is why I filed an amendment that would have required the Federal Communications Commission to produce this list if the bill does become law.

I support net neutrality, but I cannot and do not support H.R. 1644. We should be providing the American people with a real net neutrality solution rather than pushing forward an agenda that does not have the capability to become law and won't protect the internet.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. Rodgers).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is. I have no more speakers.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have?

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

In this debate today, we have heard both sides, but I really believe that, on our side, the American people don't want to have a takeover of the internet. As we have spoken on our side, we all believe in the same things. We don't want throttling; we don't blocking; and we don't want paid prioritization out there.

As has been stated already earlier today, we have had three bills that were introduced, one being my piece of legislation that had been introduced by the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that set forth those policies and also stating that it should not have title II in it because, again, you do not want to have the heavy hand of government coming in on this.

We had the Republican leader of the full committee with his legislation, taking what the FCC has done and putting in legislation to make sure, again, we don't have the blocking and the throttling.

The gentlewoman from Washington State, when you look at her legislation, again, it came from a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic Governor, which stated the same things: You don't want to have the throttling, blocking, or paid prioritization.

The American people want to make sure that the internet is out there, that it is working, and that you don't have that heavy hand.

I think it is also important, as has been noted during the debate-- what are we looking at here? We have had past FCC Chairmen all saying the same thing, except for Chairman Wheeler when he changed and went with the 2015 order. But Republicans and Democrats have all said the same thing, that this is an information service, not a telecommunications service that would be coming under the draconian laws of the 1930s that were really to take care of the Ma Bells out there.

We also have seen that this bill does not cover the edge providers, and a lot of people would be surprised about that. The question is raised: Why aren't they included in this piece of legislation? Because if you want to make sure that everyone is included, you should have been looking at it in this piece of legislation, because when you are looking at the Facebook and the Twitters out there, what is happening with them?

I also want to point out that I know there is some concern when this was going on back in 2015 and what happened when the current FCC rescinded the order. You know, the internet did not end. I did not get calls the next day saying I was not able to go online. I wasn't unable to do our work or do anything like that. I never received a call. So I think it is important we note that.

At the same time, what we have also discussed here today, and also in committee, is that we would like to see the 700 rules and the regs out there that the FCC forbore on. We still don't have those. I have asked, through my amendment, that we get those because I think it is important we know what that is, because how do you know what they are doing if you don't see it?

I think that it is very important that these facts are considered. I think it is important that we have had this debate today. But I think it is also important that we don't want to have a takeover by the government of the internet because we want to make sure that it does what it has always done. It is something that was formed out there that had what they called a light touch to let it go forward, so I think it is important that we do that.

For those reasons, Madam Chair, I would recommend a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1644, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 2.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment that would require the Federal Communications Commission to provide a list of the 700 rules and regulations it claims it forbore from in the 2015 Open Internet Order.

This list will be provided to the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee within 3 days of enactment of H.R. 1644.

The need for this amendment arises out of the majority's claim that H.R. 1644 would lock in all provisions of law and regulations that the FCC forbore from applying to internet service providers in 2015.

At that time, the FCC claimed it forbore from applying over 700 regulations, but never made clear what 700 rules it was exempting ISPs from under title II.

For broadband providers to know what regulations actually apply to them, they need to know what provisions of law the FCC forbore from.

For the FCC to arrive at the number of over 700, it seems they must have analyzed the Code of Federal Regulations to determine which rules were applicable to broadband and which were not, but the FCC never made that list public.

We have asked the majority on multiple occasions for help tracking down that list. Instead of helping locate it, the majority has doubled down on the public statements made by the Obama FCC quantifying that number.

Now that H.R. 1644 might be passed by the House of Representatives, it is time to make it clear which rules of the road will not apply to broadband providers.

H.R. 1644 already imposes enough uncertainty on broadband providers, because it would give the FCC broad authority under title II to regulate the internet beyond even the bright-line rules.

If we cannot clear up that uncertainty before this bill gets passed, we should do all we can to let the public know what the bill does after it would become law.

Unless we require the FCC to produce that list, we will never know what is in the bill.

We must do better for the American public and provide more transparency to support broadband employment, investment, and growth.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the Republican leader of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague, the gentlewoman's concern for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and the possible impact of the 2015 Open Internet Order on their ability to get connected online and have access to all the economic and social opportunities the internet has made possible. These are all very important questions to consider, and so I will not oppose this amendment.

However, I hope my colleagues will consider just as much the possibility that throwing the internet into title II and all of the heavy-handed government regulation that it represents may not be the best way to address the concerns of these populations.

We completely agree with the transformative impact of the internet on minorities, rural populations, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, and the socioeconomically disadvantaged. In many ways, the internet is even more important to these populations than to anyone else.

So what would really help to bridge the digital divide and get more of these folks connected? I would argue what is most critical in this problem we are all trying to solve is, number one, to encourage investment.

But you have heard me say it before, and I will say it again: Title II is a devastating investment killer. We saw those numbers take a dip after the FCC diverged from the longstanding bipartisan path of light- touch regulation into the 1930s era monopoly regulation of title II.

So what impact would the title II reclassification have on the disadvantaged and vulnerable populations we are talking about with this amendment? How will it impact future deployment that could connect them? Maybe we should also have the GAO looking into that.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague's interest, the gentleman's interest in stand-alone broadband. As he knows, this is a really important issue, especially in rural America, and one that the FCC has spent considerable time on, in fact, one that I have spent considerable time on as one of the co-chairs of the Rural Broadband Caucus.

So I do not oppose this amendment, but I want to observe here that this amendment will not do anything to relieve the smallest ISPs found in the most rural areas from some of the worst excesses of this bill.

So I must say, I am disappointed that our friends in the majority refuse to give us a vote on my amendment, which would have included the language on small businesses that was passed unanimously by the House in the last two Congresses.

This amendment was exactly the same as the one that the Democrats have agreed--twice--to tie to the original 2015 order. It would have extended the exemption for small ISPs from the Obama FCC's enhanced transparency rule for 5 years and expanded the exemption to include businesses with 250,000 subscribers or fewer.

I am supportive of protecting the consumers of small ISPs, but these enhanced disclosures placed an unnecessary regulatory burden on small businesses and distracted them from working to bring broadband internet access to customers across the country, especially those in rural America.

My colleagues in the majority seem supportive of the plight of the small, rural ISPs but could not support this amendment at subcommittee--even though they had voted to support it twice before. Instead, they asked us to find yet another bipartisan agreement on an issue that we have already spent hours negotiating and have already found common ground.

We held up our end of the bargain, even as we walked away from the deal that they agreed to twice before and proceeded to dig in on terms of the FCC's 2015 order instead.

Although time has passed since the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act, H.R. 4596, passed the House unanimously in the 114th Congress with a vote of 411-0 and was reintroduced in the 115th Congress and passed on voice vote as H.R. 288, the need still exists to promote the continued deployment of broadband and prevent small ISPs from becoming burdened with additional requirements that make it more difficult to do what they are in business to do. In fact, based on our hearings in the past Congress and some of the statements on the floor today, I think it is safe to say there is bipartisan consensus on the need to support rural broadband for consumers.

As a reminder, my amendment would not have let small ISPs skirt transparency. Instead, they would follow the less onerous transparency rules adopted by the FCC in 2010. So consumers would still have access to the information needed to make informed decisions about their internet service, and ISPs could focus on providing service rather than cumbersome regulatory requirements.

I believe my friends across the aisle when they say they care about expanding broadband in rural America and closing the digital divide. Although, if they truly cared as much as they claim to, I would have expected my amendment to be made in order and to be adopted unanimously as it has been by the House in the past.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we do not oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I agree with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter), my colleague, that FCC enforcement is important in any area that the agency regulates, and that is why we will not oppose this amendment.

That is also why we in the majority have asked, at several hearings, when we were going to have our first FCC oversight hearing this Congress. We are 4 months into this Congress, and the majority has yet to bring the FCC before the committee to answer questions relating to its past enforcement efforts on ISPs, the impact of this legislation, and other topics pending at the FCC.

This is an issue that could have gained by having the FCC before the committee rather than the topic being delegated to a report that does not pertain to the base bill.

This is also an issue that could have gained from bipartisan negotiations. All three Republican net neutrality bills would have the FCC oversee ISP practices and enforce net neutrality to keep a free and open internet.

There is more agreement here than the majority would have you believe. There is also a role for the FCC to have in overseeing net neutrality and maintaining a free and open internet, and there should be clear net neutrality rules on the book.

Where we disagree is on giving the FCC unchecked powers to regulate the internet and determine on its own what is just and reasonable. That is not net neutrality.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to see the Democrats bring so many ideas today as it comes to rural broadband, and because of that, we will not oppose this amendment.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) on our committee has been a strong advocate of improving the 477 data at the FCC and how to have the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the NTIA, more engaged in mapping by aggregating resources across the Federal Government. He was part of an effort

last fall that shared a draft reauthorization of NTIA with the Democrats that would have helped get more granular information. Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle put down their pens on this effort.

In our markup last week, Mr. Johnson offered an amendment that was voted down by the majority that would have eased the title II albatross from small rural carriers. Sadly, this was rejected. Coincidentally, we saw a number of the Democratic amendments made in order to study the problems of rural broadband deployment.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Findlay, Ohio for being recognized as

the Top Micropolitan Community in the United States for the fifth year in a row. The issuing magazine, Site Selection, announced the 2019 award by describing Findlay as ``being propelled into superstar status.''

To be considered, a micropolitan city must have a population ranging from 10,000 to 50,000. Over 500 of these cities were evaluated on business growth and economic sustainability. With Findlay's 23 projects that met Site Selection's criteria, it surpassed the competition and secured the ``five-peat.''

Fostering a cooperative environment between the community, business, and local government has allowed for continued economic growth in Findlay. This success would not be possible without the commendable efforts of the Findlay government, the Findlay-Hancock County Economic Development office, the Hancock County Commissioners, and the entire Findlay community.

Madam Speaker, Findlay has routinely served as an example of what a strong community and a commitment to its prosperity can do by implementing their renowned ``Findlay Formula.'' This formula continues to pay dividends and serves as an example to cities across the country.

I congratulate Findlay for another year as the nation's top-ranked Micropolitan Community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 583, the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement Act, the PIRATE Act, introduced by my friends Mr. Tonko and Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Tonko and Mr. Bilirakis for their bipartisan efforts to combat illegal pirate radio operations.

This bill gives the Federal Communications Commission, along with State and local law enforcement, more tools to go after pirate radio operators. Without the ability to effectively go after illegal transmitters, the FCC and other entities cannot protect the over 240 million Americans who rely on radio broadcasting for vital news and entertainment.

Furthermore, stopping bad actors from pirating our airwaves improves public safety by preventing unlawful broadcasts from interfering with first responders' lifesaving communications and public safety officials' transmission of critical information in an emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the PIRATE Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, again, for all the reasons that I have stated here today on the PIRATE Act, I believe that this bill is essential to pass today, and I ask the House to pass H.R. 583.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support of H.R. 501, the Poison Center Network Enhancement Act of 2019, introduced by Representatives Brooks and Engel.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Committee on Energy and Commerce colleagues for their bipartisan work on this important initiative.

This legislation will reauthorize the national toll-free number, public awareness campaign, and grant program that supports the Nation's 55 poison centers.

These centers are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to provide free and confidential assistance with emergencies and other information to help prevent poisoning. As of January 2019, poison control centers have managed over 4,000 opioid exposure cases alone.

At a time when our Nation is still fighting to overcome an opioid crisis, these centers are on the front lines, helping to save individuals who overdose. Furthermore, these centers collect real-time data, enhancing public health surveillance and aiding in the detection of public health emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 525, the Strengthening the Health Care Fraud Prevention Task Force Act of 2019, introduced by the Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Walden and Chairman Pallone.

This legislation will codify the Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership, which is currently operated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and is a voluntary public-private partnership between the Federal Government, State agencies, law enforcement, private health insurance plans, and healthcare antifraud associations.

The partnership was established by the Obama administration and the Trump administration recommended codifying it, solidifying the bipartisan nature of revealing and halting scams that cut across public and private payers.

H.R. 525 will ensure the continued operation of this important partnership to detect and prevent healthcare fraud through public- private information sharing, streamlining analytical tools and data, and providing a forum for government and industry experts to exchange successful antifraud practices.

This bill before us today is the product of bipartisan cooperation, as well as engagement with the Department of Health and Human Services and industry stakeholders.

Originally introduced in the 115th Congress, this legislation worked its way through the Committee on Energy and Commerce in a transparent manner and currently enjoys the support of the chairmen and republican leaders of both the Committee of Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 269, the PAHPA OTC legislation, which includes a bill I authored last Congress, the Over-the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation, and Reform Act.

More than 240 million Americans use over-the-counter medications for relief of common ailments, such as headaches, colds, and seasonal allergies. We trust and depend on these affordable remedies to get us well and stay well.

Despite the success and high utilization of these medicines, the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory structure for oversight of OTC products, referred to as the monograph system, is outdated and incomplete. The system was created more than 45 years ago, yet movement on unfinished items has ground to a halt due to cumbersome notice and comment rulemaking processes.

Without process modernization, it is nearly impossible for manufacturers to address safety concerns and offers little incentive to develop new products. This bill would provide meaningful and long overdue reform to the FDA's monograph system. The reform will create a more flexible framework that accounts for advances in science, allows timely updates to safety label changes, and creates a workable process for completing unfinished monographs.

This bill would also create a pathway to market for new and innovative products, which would help to reduce strain on our healthcare system by giving consumers more options to treat common ailments at home. Furthermore, this legislation will improve regulatory certainty for manufacturers. Over time, we would see increase investment in research and development, leading to new OTC medicines on our shelves, and providing greater self-care options to consumers.

Again, I thank my colleagues--Ms. DeGette, Mr. Guthrie, Mrs. Dingell, Dr. Burgess, and former Member Mr. Gene Green from Texas--the FDA, and stakeholders for working so closely with me over the last 3 years to ensure that this modernization effort appropriately addresses and resolves this complex issue.

I believe modernization of the broken monograph system will strengthen consumer protections, spur innovation, and expand consumer choice. It is long overdue to fix this regulatory framework that oversees 60 percent of the medicines sold in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of our bipartisan bill, H.R. 269, PAHPA OTC.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7328, which includes the bill I authored, H.R. 5333, the Over-the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation, and Reform Act.

With more than 240 million Americans using OTC products every year, it is time to update and complete the outdated regulatory framework used for oversight of these medicines.

This bill will modernize the broken monograph system, strengthen consumer protection, spur innovation, and increase consumer choice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Senate amendment to my bill, H.R. 4227, the Vehicular Terrorism Prevention Act. It previously passed the House by a vote of 417-2 and was amended by the Senate to make simple technical corrections.

Over the past several years, we have seen an increased frequency of terrorists around the world using vehicles, oftentimes rental vans or trucks, to commit violence. The United States has not been immune to these attacks as we saw in New York City at the end of last year when a terrorist killed 8 people and injured 11.

This bipartisan legislation will ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is doing their due diligence to guard against attacks like this in the future. It would require the DHS Secretary to assess the activities the Department is undertaking to combat the threat of vehicular terrorism and submit a strategy to Congress on its findings and recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, Senator Bill Cassidy, and the staffs of both the House and Senate committees for their work in advancing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in concurring with the Senate amendment to

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7279, the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have worked on legislation to give our Nation's communities more flexibility to comply with costly regulations in regards to their wastewater infrastructure improvements. In each Congress since 2008, I have introduced legislation that addresses these issues and provides relief to our local communities.

I have heard from many villages, towns, and cities across my district over the years that struggle to meet wastewater and stormwater improvement demands. This legislation is a key step to build on the work I have previously done to provide relief to our constituents by allowing them to more effectively and efficiently meet their specific water needs.

There are billions of dollars worth of water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure needs in the State of Ohio. It is critical to provide communities with the ability to meet their obligations in a more cost-effective manner.

This legislation will codify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Planning Framework and provide additional tools and flexibility for communities to comply with mandated wastewater infrastructure improvement projects.

This is important because it allows municipalities and clean water utilities to decide how best to spend their limited resources. Integrated planning allows communities to allocate funds in a targeted manner, allowing them to focus on the most effective water quality improvements.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleague Representative Gibbs, as well as Representatives Chabot, Napolitano, Fudge, and Bustos for working together to get this bipartisan piece of legislation passed. I will continue to work with my colleagues in both chambers to ensure that this bipartisan bill reaches the President's desk in order to help improve our Nation's water infrastructure and protect the ratepayers.

I urge all my colleagues to support this measure, and, again, I thank my colleague for introducing the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the McComb High School football team for winning the Ohio State Division VII Championship. The Panthers won their second title in school history with a 28-3 victory over Glouster Trimble.

McComb showed great fortitude in reeling off eight straight wins on their way to the title. Including freshmen, the Panthers dressed 27 players, about half the number of most of their opponents.

The Panthers' success can be tied to their stout defense which didn't surrender a single touchdown in the championship game. These student athletes gave it their all and had the backing of the entire school district. They exemplified the best of Ohio small-town football.

I know what the title means to McComb, as my dad played for McComb in the late 1930s. It is great to see the fans rally around these players.

Once again, congratulations to Coach Kris Alge and the rest of the McComb High School football team on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6032) to direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the state of the internet-connected devices industry in the United States, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6032, the State of Modern Application, Research, and Trends of IoT Act, or the SMART IoT Act.

Earlier this year, the SMART IoT Act was unanimously approved by the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee and the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

I would like to thank Chairman Walden for his support of this bipartisan legislation. I also want to thank Representative Welch for his leadership as the original cosponsor of the SMART IoT Act and the many bipartisan members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for cosponsoring this bill.

Representative Welch and I have been working together on these issues for years, including as co-founders of the Internet of Things Working Group in the 114th Congress.

Today marks an important step towards maximizing the full potential of Internet-connected devices, more commonly known as smart devices.

Almost any physical object can be transformed into a smart device with microchips, sensors, and wireless communications. Once transformed, these smart devices connect through a network to share, exchange, and analyze data to gather insights used to solve problems or enable new capabilities.

IoT solutions will benefit consumers and businesses by improving productivity, efficiency, and much more. Whether we are talking about advancements to automobiles that will improve roadway safety and save lives or smart-city applications that will improve services for residents, one thing is clear: We have the chance to benefit from a more connected world.

Because of the vast benefits of IoT, we are seeing significant economic impacts across a number of industries. By 2025, it is projected that the total economic impact of IoT could reach $11.1 trillion. This includes value increases annually of up to $2.5 trillion in the healthcare sector, $2.3 trillion in manufacturing, $300 billion in infrastructure, $100 billion in agriculture, and $50 billion in vehicle use.

To realize these benefits, we must ensure the Government does not get in the way. Throughout numerous meetings over the years, we heard from many stakeholders. What became clear is that it is difficult to know who is doing what, both in the Federal Government and also in the private sector.

A lack of collaboration and dialogue presents the problem of creating unnecessary barriers to innovation and commonsense policy, something we cannot afford to do if we want to unleash the power of IoT in the United States. We must equip ourselves and industry with information about what Federal, public-private, and self-regulatory efforts are in place or under way.

This is why we developed the SMART IoT Act. The SMART IoT Act directs the Secretary of Commerce to create a compendium to answer that very question: Who is doing what? At the Federal level, this is what will help promote interagency discussions and avoid conflicting or duplicative obligations or regulations that may slow innovation and progress.

At the industry level, this will help innovators and businesses know how entities are developing, using, and promoting use of IoT solutions. It will also highlight industry-based efforts to self-regulate and provide all stakeholders with a resource to facilitate communication and information sharing.

The SMART IoT Act is a critical first step to future IoT policy efforts. It provides important information that will foster Federal collaboration and streamline private industry efforts.

We have an obligation to do what we can to promote American competitiveness and technological advancements that benefit Americans in an environment where other countries are trying to overtake the United States in technical innovation.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank Chairman Walden, Representative Welch, and

all of the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 6032, the SMART IoT Act. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 6032, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge support of H.R. 6032, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6. This legislation will make a significant difference to tens of thousands of Americans who are struggling with addiction.

I am pleased that my bill, the INFO Act, is part of the fight against the opioid crisis. The INFO Act is essential to ensuring we are providing behavioral health professionals, advocates, physicians, and families with the tools, resources, and funding information they need to prevent, identify, and treat addiction.

Furthermore, H.R. 6 is critically important to stop the flow of illegal opioids, prevent the misuse of drugs, and help those who are addicted. With 190 Americans dying every day from overdoses, it is time to act now.