Save the Internet Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LATTA. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LATTA. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source