Anna Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. At this time, I yield 4 minutes to a very distinguished and valued member of the subcommittee, Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time we have remaining.

Ms. ESHOO. I will reserve that time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, obviously, my colleagues know that I'm a strong proponent of openness and transparency rules in government. I'm concerned about this amendment because it seems as if it would apply special Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requirements on one agency alone. As with the underlying bill, I am concerned that this would create confusion and inconsistency. Most frankly, I also question what the problem is that we're addressing here. Just 2 weeks ago, Chairman Issa, the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over FOIA matters, issued a report in which he gave an A grade for FOIA compliance relative to the FCC. It is also my understanding that the FCC is already publishing on its Web site logs for tracking, for responding to, and for managing FOIA requests. So it's a little confusing given the grade that Chairman Issa issued relative to the FCC and FOIA requests and relative to the issues that I raised. So I think, perhaps, that the amendment may be redundant or simply not needed at all. Those are my observations, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, earlier the chairman of the subcommittee said that the bill doesn't change the public interest standard for reviewing mergers. That simply is not the case. The bill does change it. It alters the ability of the FCC to impose conditions for the public interest, which is a very serious issue. I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee and dean of the House of Representatives. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to use some of our remaining time on this side to respond to several points that have been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. First, while the majority argues that H.R. 3309 is only a ``light touch'' in making sure that the FCC follows the Obama Executive order on cost-benefit analysis, they failed to mention that such cost-benefit review is not judicially reviewable. That's a very important fact here. The Executive order states that it's ``not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable, at law, or in equity by any party against the United States.'' H.R. 3309, therefore, would create another avenue for appeal and litigation by corporate interests that oppose the FCC's efforts to take actions in the public interest, and no other Federal Agency would be subjected to such challenges. That's number one. That speaks to, I think, the public interest which, I think, is at the heart of what the FCC's responsibilities are. Second, Mr. Gingrey mentioned the shot clocks. There are 73 types of proceedings the FCC must consider, and each item can be, as we all know and anyone that is tuned in and listening to this knows, can be very complex. No wonder CBO estimated that H.R. 3309 would require the hiring of 20 additional employees. Thirdly, as the majority placed in the Record those that support the bill--even Mr. Markey spoke of some of the large telecommunication companies--I think it's important to set down for the record who opposes the bill and what they have to say about it. Bruce Gottlieb in the National Journal: Layering new procedural requirements on top of existing ones would effectively halt the creation of nearly any contentious new FCC rules--in other words, achieve a result more or less like what Texas Governor Rick Perry had in mind for the Commerce and Education Departments. Susan Crawford in Wired Magazine: Although the bill's proponents say they aim to make things work more quickly at the FCC, the legislation will have the opposite effect: it will make it very difficult for the FCC to deal with any of the real-time telecom problems the country faces. What the Republicans seem to want, at bottom, is to grant the giant companies that sell us basic communications capacity--an essential utility for the 21st century--the ability to throw sand in the works at every opportunity. From Philip Weiser, the dean at the University of Colorado Law School: I am against passing this bill, which would give rise to unfortunate and unintended consequences that would undermine the FCC's future effectiveness without providing any real benefits. From the Consumers Union: The bill would require the FCC to adopt rules as long as they do not impose an additional burden on industry. The bill limits the FCC's ability to consider the public interest and protect consumers when considering mergers. Mr. Chairman, this is no small item. Then the Public Interest Groups Coalition letter of February 9 of this year: These bills would severely hinder the FCC's ability to carry out its congressional mandate to promote competition, innovation, and the availability of communication services. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time we have left on our side.

Ms. ESHOO. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3309. Essentially, this bill guts the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, by requiring new onerous process requirements which will result in an Agency that's less effective, less agile, and less transparent, the opposite direction, I think, of where we all want to go. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, I want to thank the chairman for the work that he has done with us. He has always been very respectful, and the process I think has been a good one. Democrats support modernizing the FCC because we want to enable the Agency to operate with increased openness and transparency, as I said. But, unfortunately, the bill doesn't accomplish these goals. Over the past year, our subcommittee has heard from countless industry representatives, administrative law experts, and public interest advocates; but there aren't any public interest advocates that support this bill, which I think in and of itself is instructive. Amongst those experts the chairman mentioned is Phil Weiser, dean of the University of Colorado Law School, who is often cited and who has implied that adopting some of his proposed reforms is the way to go; but Dean Weiser tells us ``passing this law would be a grave mistake.'' Yet, despite the feedback of a bipartisan group of administrative law experts who suggested that this legislation could tie up the FCC in 15 years of litigation--that's a real job creator for lawyers--the House is going to vote today on this, on a bill which requires unique statutory mandates that apply only to the FCC, thus altering the way in which the FCC reviews transactions and exposing the Agency to new litigation risks. H.R. 3309 mandates that the FCC undertake a cost-benefit analysis of any rule with ``economically significant impact.'' This requirement ignores the fact that the FCC already takes into account the impact of its rules on small businesses. Then to add insult to injury, the CBO estimates that, if enacted, H.R. 3309 would cost $26 million and require the agency to hire an additional 20 employees to handle the new rulemaking, reporting, and analysis activities required under the bill. The chairman has said, well, it's a fee-driven agency. Fees from businesses? Fees from anywhere. It's still going to cost $26 million more and will add more to the bureaucracy that I think the majority really doesn't have much affection for. For nearly 80 years, the FCC has operated as an independent agency, responsible for regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. By most accounts, the FCC continues to innovate and implement reforms. The chairman was very gracious to outline what Chairman Genachowski has done under his leadership, including removing 120 obsolete regulations, drastically reducing the number of pending applications, and taking steps to increase transparency and stakeholder participation. So, for all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that H.R. 3309 is the solution, and that's why I am urging my colleagues to oppose this legislation even though there are some parts of it that I support. We need to ensure that the FCC's ability remains to protect consumers and to ensure a competitive marketplace in the years to come. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I seek to offer the amendment at the desk.

Ms. ESHOO. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the man that I call Mr. Telecommunications, the real expert in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor this afternoon to offer an amendment to this bill that probably, for most people, as they were tuned in and listening to the discussion and the debate of the bill, may not have gotten too excited about it because it deals with the innards of an agency. But this amendment, I think, is probably one of the most important parts of the bill, and I'm very pleased that the Rules Committee found it in order. This amendment goes to the heart of our democracy, and it's all about disclosure. We have the opportunity today to secure disclosure in political reporting for the voting public. There's something very sick about our system today. People across the country are deeply and profoundly upset about the undisclosed sums of money that are being poured over and through our political system. And when that happens, it goes right to the heart of democracy. Why? Because it's undisclosed. We do not know who is contributing. We don't know how much they're contributing. We don't even know if foreign countries are involved in this. So this is really a very simple amendment. It's an amendment that adheres to the same principles that many of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, have supported before, and it works like this: If an organization buys political advertising time on broadcast television, on radio, on cable, or on satellite, they would be required to disclose their large donors, those who give $10,000 or more to air the ad. There is today, in statute, section 315 of the Communications Act-- and it's been in place since 2002--that covers national legislative issues of public importance. It also covers legally qualified candidates, or any election to Federal office. So there's something already in place. The only thing that's being added to this is that if you're going to buy time, $10,000 or more, that you are required to disclose and name who the donors are, who's contributing that money. I think that this is very important. We are a democracy. We're not a plutocracy. What I hear over and over and over and over again from my constituents is the damage that Citizens United, the case that the Supreme Court rendered the decision--I think a disastrous one--2 years ago. We have the jurisdiction at the Energy and Commerce Committee and this subcommittee; it is within our jurisdiction to take this up in this bill. Now, there is something else. Some people have said that this is burdensome--burdensome for broadcasters, burdensome for those that broadcast television, burdensome to radio, burdensome to cable, burdensome to satellite. They're not the ones that have to disclose, only those that buy the time. And the files exist today. There is one file, one file only--now, there are other files for other responsibilities, but there's only one for political ads. Is America and our democracy not worth requiring those that want to buy the political ads to disclose who they are above $10,000? And that's it. So the law is already in place since 2002. The file is already there. There is no burden to the broadcasters, radio, TV, satellite, cable, as I said, but simply to report. Now, there are those that say that that would be burdensome, that that would be burdensome as well. My question is, How heavy a burden is it? How heavy of a burden, how heavy of a lift is it to report and disclose to the American people? The American people have a right to know; and once they know disclosure is a disinfectant, they will make up their own minds. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this is the final amendment to improve this important piece of legislation that I fully support. Capital formation is the lifeblood of innovation in the 21st century, as it was in our past in America. It's so essential to our national economy. Just as importantly, transparency is the lifeblood of our democracy. The amendment I'm offering today will ensure that emerging growth companies nurtured under today's legislation will fully disclose their political expenditures. Just as entrepreneurs deserve all of the tools available to create and grow companies, voters deserve every tool to decide on public issues for themselves. Since the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, voters across the country have been treated to a sad spectacle not seen since the Watergate era or even the Gilded Age. This year's Presidential election is bearing witness to hundreds of millions of dollars spent on behalf of candidates. The vast majority of the money is coming from outside the channels of parties and candidates, unaccountable to the voters for the messages they deliver. Instead, money from corporations and extremely wealthy people is now being spent through so-called nonprofits and super PACs, denying and delaying disclosure or preventing it all together. The American people deserve better. House Democrats have offered comprehensive transparency legislation called the DISCLOSE Act, and we should pass that bill together as soon as possible. We can begin that work today by adopting this final amendment and passing the bill. It will not burden small businesses, and it will empower the American people. Mr. Speaker, this final amendment to the bill will not kill it nor will it send it back to committee. If it's adopted, the bill will proceed to final passage as amended. Congress can say today to the American people that we respect them. We can say we trust them to decide for themselves because they have complete information. I've always believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant. By voting for this amendment and voting for the bill, we can score two victories for the American people. We can strengthen small businesses across our country, and we can strengthen democracy. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. ESHOO. In its current form.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Frank. I'm pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1070, which is a provision, actually a bill, that is contained in the underlying legislation which we're going to be voting on today. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Frank because he recognized the worth of the idea of expanding on Regulation A which was part of the Securities Act of 1933. He was more than interested in the idea. He said come and testify on it, which I did in December of 2010. So I was proud to do that. Both sides of the aisle at that hearing became heavily engaged in it. They were really fascinated by what it was and what it could do relative to capital formation. So now this bipartisan bill, which passed the House in November of this last year 421 1, is now in this bill. It increases the offering limit from $5 million to $50 million under the SEC Regulation A, which, as I think I said, was enacted during the Great Depression to facilitate the flow of capital to small businesses. Look at the genius of FDR. A reformed Regulation A is important for small businesses and start-ups not only in my Silicon Valley district but across the country. This is especially true in high-tech, sustainable energy and the life sciences fields where research and development start-up costs routinely exceed $5 million. And in 2010, only seven companies actually took advantage of it. So I'm very pleased that this is part of this overall legislation. I salute the ranking member, Mr. Frank, for recognizing it, for supporting it early on, and for getting the ball rolling at his committee with a Member who is not a member of his committee; and I think the country is going to win with this provision, and I'm proud to support it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in support of the amendment. Why? Because it states that if any fishery-related or agricultural job is lost as a result of this act, the bill will not be enacted. And I think that really sets down where we are. We need jobs in this country and not job-killing legislation. Now this legislation would undo years of negotiations reached by the State of California, local ranchers, farmers, and other users of water from the San Joaquin River. It would set up a new round of water wars, which means more employment for lawyers but not much for anyone else. My congressional district, which includes Silicon Valley and the fishing community of Half Moon Bay, is not in the delta, but my constituents oppose this legislation because their communities, their livelihoods, their resources will also be negatively affected by this bill. Now listen to what the Silicon Valley Leadership Group says, over 350 major companies in Silicon Valley: We believe that H.R. 1837 would be counterproductive to the development of a comprehensive solution to the Golden State's water programs as it overrides many existing regulations and laws concerning the delta ecosystem and undermines years of collaboration and goodwill developed by a broad coalition of actors and experts. And this mention of broad coalition, it's why this bill stinks, in plain English, because there's not a coalition. You have to build from the ground up with the stakeholders. That's why there's such a problem with it. Listen to what the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations says, and they're the largest commercial fishermen association along the Pacific coast: Make no mistake, this bill will only preempt State law; it will destroy jobs. One of the west coast's oldest industries, our salmon fishery, along with the fishing communities and the economy and heritage it represents, is threatened with extinction by this audacious bill. We need to protect our citizens from further economic hardships by defending American jobs and enacting legislation that will help, not harm. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for Representative Thompson's amendment.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, I want to provide an explanation of a key provision in the spectrum title of H.R. 3630, the recently enacted Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which promotes competition and ensures a vibrant wireless marketplace. Section 6404 enables participation in a spectrum auction if a person ``complies with all the auction procedures and other requirements to protect the auction process established by the Commission'' and ``meets the technical, financial, character, and citizenship qualifications that the Commission may require under section 303(1)(1), 308(b), or 310'' of the Communications Act, or would meet those qualifications by means approved by the Commission prior to the grant of the license. A similar provision was included in the version of H.R. 3630 passed by the House in December, however, the Conferees made three important modifications. First, they added the requirement that an auction participation must comply with ``auction procedures and other requirements to protect the auction process.'' This ensures that the FCC can ensure the integrity of each auction. Second, they added a requirement to ensure the FCC has the authority to design auction rules, such as divestiture plans, and require a winning bidder's compliance prior to the grant of the license. Third, and importantly, the Conferees added language stating that none of the limitations on the FCC's ability to prevent a person from participating in an auction ``affects any authority the Commission has to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability, including rules concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition.'' This provision is critical to ensuring that the FCC can meet its statutory obligation to ensure competition in the wireless marketplace by avoiding an excessive concentration of licenses through auction- specific rules. I'm pleased the Conferees saw fit to balance the original House language with this savings clause. As Americans increasingly depend on wireless services for both voice and data, this legislation makes substantial new spectrum available for auction and ensures that the FCC--by rulemaking--can adopt rules enhancing competition, consumer choice and innovation.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, February 27th marks the 24th anniversary of a violent and horrific attack against Azerbaijani citizens of Armenian descent. The 1988 attacks began in the town of Sumgait in Soviet Azerbaijan. Dozens of Armenians were killed, and hundreds more were wounded. During what even the Soviet government officially described as a ``pogrom''--an organized massacre of helpless people--Armenian women and children were raped, and people were set on fire and beaten to death, all while police stood by. Tragically, the events in Sumgait presaged further pogroms in Kirovabad in November of 1988 and Baku in January of 1990. This violence initiated a broader attack against Azerbaijan's Armenian population, resulting in thousands of deaths. The conflict persists today, and the Azeri military blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and other aggression sadly continues. For me, it is also a very personal remembrance. My own family fled the slaughter of the Armenian Genocide under the Ottomans, and when we learned of the massacres against Armenians in 1988, we saw history repeating itself. These vicious acts of murder targeted at ethnic groups, must be forcefully condemned whenever and wherever we see them. Yet 96 years after the slaughter of Armenians, the U.S. House of Representatives has yet to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. Without our recognition and our forceful condemnation, the cycle of violence will continue. Today, Christians and other minority groups are being driven from Iraq by extremists, and the once large and diverse ethnic communities are being eradicated. Without our attention and action by the world community, there will be no end to this senseless violence around the world. Today, let us remember the Armenians who lost their lives in Azerbaijan in 1988, and pray that the world will finally take greater account of these atrocities and work together. Let us take up the work that our principles demand of us, standing united against ethnic violence, discrimination, extremism and brutality, wherever we find it.

Ms. ESHOO

Ms. ESHOO. Public safety will have the tools to finally build out a critical nationwide interoperable broadband network and the inclusion of provisions to promote and fund Next Generation 911, which will enable the delivery of voice, text, photos, videos, and other data to 911 call centers. Our country has been counting on us to make smart, bipartisan choices. I'm proud of what we've accomplished and what it represents for American entrepreneurship, competition, and ingenuity. I thank my colleagues, and I urge them to support the legislation.

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today as the ranking member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee on this legislation because I think it's so important. It will define our Nation's ability to lead the world in wireless broadband deployment. It also will define how we finally provide our first responders with a nationwide interoperable broadband network. This legislation will usher in more competition, enhance innovation, bolster the American economy, and very, very importantly, create jobs, good jobs. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the other Chamber for coming together to develop legislation that promotes the public interest and ensures a return on investment for the taxpayer by supporting unlicensed spectrum, a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network, and provisions to ensure that our Nation's 911 call centers will have the modern tools needed to improve the quality and the speed of emergency response. Incentive auctions will ensure that we have the world's leading wireless infrastructure, and the future for unlicensed innovation in the TV band is bright.