Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the New Dems, and I would like to recognize the current New Dem chair. I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) partisan vote to rollback net neutrality regulations implemented under the Obama Administration was extremely troubling and quite wrong. Allowing internet service providers (ISPs) to charge for ``fast lanes'' would alter the internet significantly. The idea that broadband internet access is an information service, rather than a telecommunications service, was a convenient legal- fiction in the 90s when broadband was in an infancy, to help speed its adoption. But classifying broadband as anything other than telecommunication service today is intellectually empty. The argument the FCC puts forward that broadband is an information service because it offers domain name resolution is laughable. According to the FCC, you aren't buying internet access you are buying a DNS service, something I'm willing to bet 98 percent of broadband customers have never heard of. It must be a triumph of marketing genius that broadband providers have sold 98 percent of their customers something that they have never heard of, or even knew they had. Under this logic, I guess telephone lines aren't telecommunication services, but phonebook information services. Likewise, the FCC's argument that somehow net neutrality has harmed broadband deployment has not only been directly contradicted for years by broadband providers' statements to shareholders, one only needs to look at Comcast for an example of how wrong the FCC is. Because of the consent decree it agreed to for its purchase of NBC Universal, Comcast was subject to net neutrality longer than any other broadband provider, from 2011 to 2018. In those 7 years, the average Comcast broadband connection went from 18 megabits per second to 69 megabits per second. In 2017, Comcast had the fastest national Speed Score according to internet speed test company Ookla. As for the concerns around the reclassification itself, the FCC never attempted to use any of the Title II authorities that broadband companies were allegedly concerned about. In fact, the FCC barred themselves from doing so in the original net neutrality order. By voting in favor of H.R. 1644, we will be codifying this forbearance, effectively preventing any future FCC from undoing that forbearance without Congress. The Internet has become an indispensable part of all aspects of modern life. And our reliance on it as a neutral gateway will only increase. It would be irresponsible of Congress not to protect the openness and freedom of the Internet that has made so much possible. I can't fathom why this isn't a bipartisan issue, but to quote Wade Randlett, founder of TechNet: ``The GOP seems to think that Orwellian language is going to work on the world's smartest people, . . . . If you say net neutrality is government regulation--and if you think there's anyone in the valley who thinks that's a true statement--you're already dead in the water. They would be better off just saying, `We respectfully disagree.' '' I am a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 1644, the Save the Internet Act, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 226, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 7, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 31, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman has laid out the case quite eloquently. I simply wanted to say that, while the government could never own or should never own the news media, we may have a role to create an environment where local news can flourish without our saying in any way how or what they should cover. But we know that local news covers local stories, and without the local news, you will never find out what is going on in city hall, what is going on in the board of supervisors, and what is going on on the planning commission and the like. So what Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Cicilline, and others have outlined here is a very important challenge for the United States of America. If we are going to have control of our governments, we need to have information; and if we are going to have information, then we need to have a free press all the way from city hall up to the White House. We have got some holes in that coverage right now. So, Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Cicilline, and others for the efforts that they are making, and I look forward to supporting them as they move forward.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H. Res. 245 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, due to my attendance of a funeral I was not present for the vote, on March 14, 2019, on H. Con. Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress. Had I been present for rollcall vote 125 I would have voted ``yea.'' I am pleased that this resolution calling for the release of Special Counsel Mueller's report to the public and to Congress passed decisively.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution today. We have a responsibility to the American people to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, and we also have an obligation, as a separate and equal branch of government, to act as a check on the executive branch. Without access to necessary information, we can't fulfill our constitutionally prescribed duties. We must have not only this report, but the evidence collected to support the report. If the President has nothing to hide, then he would also support this resolution by tweet or verbal approval. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. It is very important for our country.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following summary of revenue estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation. Summary of Revenue Estimate From Joint Committee on Taxation (3/4/2019--Very Preliminary) Estimate of proposed 2.75% special assessment on criminal penalties and civil penalties, generally limit nontax penalties to organizational defendants. All estimates below are in millions of dollars, by fiscal year. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Georgia, the Honorable John Lewis, hero of the voting rights and civil rights movement.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I just want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Colorado for offering this refining amendment. I think he is exactly right. In order to fully engage the American people, we need to make every effort for them to participate. And for young people who feel that they really don't have a say, allowing them to pre-register helps them buy in to our American system of government. You know, somebody on the other side of the building said, well, this is a power grab, to make sure that--H.R. 1 is a power grab. It is. It is a power grab for the American people, to take the power away from the special interests and give it to the American people. The gentleman's amendment helps further that worthy goal, and I thank him for offering it.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) on this very smart amendment. I am not surprised. It is typical that she would make this a bipartisan amendment. It is very helpful. It is very smart. I am glad that she is back here in Congress to show this leadership. Just one word on the CBO: It shows that there is indeed no tax money involved in the freedom from influence fund.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, for 8 years, this Chamber has been silent, a silence that harms people. We have allowed measures to reduce people's access to vote, measures that caused the Fourth Circuit to find that African American voters were targeted with surgical precision, measures that excluded voters on Indian reservations and that wrongfully tried to remove 95,000 naturalized Texans from the rolls. Today that silence ends. This bill is not for its own sake. A Member of the U.S. Senate said that H.R. 1 is a power grab. He is right. It grabs power away from the special interests, the elites, and the 1 percent and gives it to the American people. I tell you plainly what it does: automatic voter registration to allow 50 million eligible citizens to vote, prohibits deceptive practices, increases access to polls for voters with disabilities, helps States replace outdated voting machines, and requires disclosure of dark money donors, not limiting their speech but simply asking them to stand by it. These reforms aren't difficult, but they will require courage to make. Mr. Frederick Douglass saw what our democracy was and what our democracy could be and said: ``Where all is plain there is nothing to be argued.'' For that reason, I do not argue. But I look forward to joining and doing the will of the people and supporting this bill. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1 already prevents noncitizens from voting in Federal elections, whether they are here lawfully or undocumented. In fact, the motion to recommit notices that. They say: ``Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in Federal elections.'' H.R. 1 utilizes the authority in Article I, Section 4 to extend in Federal elections the opportunity for every American to vote. This motion to recommit is an effort to divert us from the mission that we are on to expand voting rights to every American citizen in Federal elections. I urge its defeat. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), leader of H.R. 1, the author of the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the hero of the voting rights movement.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentlewoman yield?