Michael Doyle

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania

Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania

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