Robert Latta

Mr. LATTA

Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay special tribute to an outstanding student from Ohio's Fifth Congressional District. I am pleased to announce that Maxwell Rutledge of Findlay, Ohio has been offered an appointment to the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York. Maxwell's offer of appointment permits him to attend the United States Military Academy this fall with the incoming Class of 2023. Attending one of our nation's military academies not only offers the opportunity to serve our country, but also guarantees a world-class education while undertaking one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of their lives. Maxwell brings a tremendous amount of leadership, service, and dedication to the incoming Class of 2023. While attending Saint Francis de Sales High School in Toledo, Ohio, Maxwell excelled in several AP courses. Throughout high school, Maxwell was involved with the varsity swim team. I am confident that Maxwell will carry the lessons of his student and athletic leadership to the Military Academy. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Maxwell Rutledge on his offer of appointment to the United States Military Academy. Our service academies offer the finest military training and education available. I am positive that Maxwell will excel during his career at West Point, and I ask my colleagues to join me in extending their best wishes to him as he begins his service to our Nation.

Mr. LATTA

Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay special tribute to an outstanding student from Ohio's Fifth Congressional District. I am pleased to announce that Chelsea Taylor of Van Wert, Ohio has been offered an appointment to the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Chelsea's offer of appointment permits her to attend the United States Air Force Academy this fall with the incoming Class of 2023. Attending one of our nation's military academies not only offers the opportunity to serve our country, but also guarantees a world-class education while undertaking one of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of their lives. Chelsea brings a tremendous amount of leadership, service, and dedication to the incoming Class of 2023. While attending Crestview High School in Convoy, Ohio, Chelsea received numerous academic achievement awards and was ranked first in her class. Throughout high school, Chelsea was involved with cheerleading, track, and gymnastics. I am confident that Chelsea will carry the lessons of her student and athletic leadership to the Air Force Academy. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Chelsea Taylor on her offer of appointment to the United States Air Force Academy. Our service academies offer the finest military training and education available. I am positive that Chelsea will excel during her career at the Air Force Academy, and I ask my colleagues to join me in extending their best wishes to her as she begins her service to our Nation.

Mr. LATTA

Mr. LATTA. 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. LATTA

Mr. LATTA. 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.

Mr. LATTA

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.

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.

Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is. I have no more speakers. Madam Chair, how much time do I have?

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

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

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

Mr. LATTA

Mr. LATTA. 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.

Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LATTA. 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.

Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. LATTA. 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.

Mr. LATTA. 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.

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

Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. LATTA. 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.

Mr. LATTA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. LATTA. 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.

Mr. LATTA

Mr. LATTA. 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.