Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2589) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission to publish on its Internet website changes to the rules of the Commission not later than 24 hours after adoption, as amended.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3998) to direct the Federal Communications Commission to commence proceedings related to the resiliency of critical telecommunications networks during times of emergency, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4167, the Kari's Law Act of 2016. Mr. Speaker, when I first heard of the tragic story of Kari Hunt, I was in disbelief. In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Kari's father, Hank, shared with us the way that his daughter was killed--stabbed by her estranged husband in a Texas hotel room while their children were in the room. While that story is obviously horrifying enough, especially as a parent, my true shock came from the next part of the story. Kari's 9- year-old daughter, doing as she had been taught from an early age, had repeatedly tried to dial 911 from the hotel phone to get emergency help. Repeatedly her little fingers pushed the buttons 9-1-1, but because the phone required another 9 to get an outside line, she was never able to reach the emergency assistance her mother so desperately needed and she so desperately tried to access. What her grandfather, Hank Hunt, told me next will stay with me forever. He said that as he sat with his granddaughter in the lobby of the police department just hours after the death of his daughter, his granddaughter looked at him and said: ``I tried 4 times, Papa, but it didn't work.'' ``I tried 4 times, Papa, but it didn't work.'' Through this tragedy we learned the difficult truth that many multiline telephone systems, like the kinds often found in hotels and offices and universities, require that users dial an additional digit to use an outside line, even when they are trying to call 911. Mr. Speaker, this is simply unacceptable. In the heat of an emergency, every person in America deserves the peace of mind to know that on any phone 911 actually means 911, period. We teach our children from a very young age what to do in an emergency: dial 911. We all hope that they will never need to use that knowledge, but we want them to know what to do. I don't know too many parents who also teach their kids to think about dialing 9 or 8 or some other number to get an outside line. H.R. 4167, known as Kari's Law, seeks to remedy this problem. The legislation requires multiline telephone systems to be configured so that dialing 911 directly connects to public safety. In addition, the law requires that a central point of contact for each system be notified when someone calls for emergency assistance, a provision intended to help emergency responders access buildings and actually locate the emergency caller. Now, these fixes are simple changes to the system in most cases, costing little, if any, money, and taking very little time, but apparently without a legal requirement, there is no way to guarantee that every MLTS will be configured for dialing 911 directly. Some businesses, including many hotels, have taken steps to fix this problem already, and I applaud them for doing so voluntarily, but there needs to be consistency across our great land, Mr. Speaker. If you are a traveler staying in a hotel, you shouldn't have to wonder during an emergency whether you are in one of the States or counties that have adopted Kari's Law when the time comes for emergency help. We need a Federal law to provide certainty and protect emergency callers when they dial 911. I would like to thank Representative Louie Gohmert from Texas. Mr. Gohmert brought this issue to our attention. He is the sponsor of Kari's Law, and his staff has done a terrific job working with us on this legislation. I would also like to thank my colleague, Ranking Member Eshoo, and her staff for working closely with us to make this bill an even better one. Reflecting the way that these systems work and making sure the requirements are strong and effective, I would also like to thank Hank Hunt for bringing this issue to our attention, for pushing for change in the face of his family's tragedy, and for coming to Washington, D.C., to share his story. I will finish my remarks with something else that Hank said before our subcommittee: ``The inspiration for Kari's Law was a 9-year-old little girl that depended on her instruction from adults on how to handle an emergency, and those adults let her down.'' Mr. Speaker, let's not let her down or any other child again. I urge my colleagues to support Kari's Law, and in doing so, we can take one step forward in ensuring that anyone, regardless of their age, who dials 911 will receive the emergency assistance they need. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 20 World War II veterans from Oregon who will be visiting their memorial today in Washington, D.C. through Honor Flight of Oregon. On behalf of a grateful state and country, we welcome these heroes to our nation's capital. This particular Honor Flight brings us 20 World War II veterans from 13 cities and towns in Oregon representing every branch of the military. Infantrymen, mechanics, operators, cutters, flight crew, pilots, seamen . . . each of these brave Americans deserves our everlasting thanks for their contributions to the war effort, and for their sacrifice on behalf of our liberty. The veterans on this flight from Oregon are as follows: Robert Kukuska, Army; Arthur Lyons, Army; Walter Young, Army; Cecil Coleman, Army Air Force; Michael W. Foree, Army Air Force; Carl Maier, Army Air Force; Gordon Halsten, Coast Guard; Robert Bennett, Marines; Earl Giggers, Merchant Marines; Jack Alsup, Navy; Oral Fitts, Navy; John Hilderbrand, Navy; Robert Lazzarini, Navy; Virgil Luksan, Navy; James Smith, Navy; Howard Winegarden, Navy; Verl Middlesworth, Navy; Eugene Wellman, Navy Reserve; Wayne Harris, Navy Seabees; and Howard Graul, Navy Seabees. These 20 heroes join the estimated 20,000-25,000 veterans who will travel to Washington, D.C. from their home states in 2016, adding to the more than 150,000 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. Mr. Speaker, each of us is humbled by the courage of these veterans who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today. My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of the Bend Heroes Foundation and Honor Flight of Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I think, as you can see, Members on both sides of the aisle know of people in our districts, our States, and across our country that have been tragically affected by opioid abuse and overdose. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on this legislation, especially my friend from Indiana, Mrs. Brooks. I rise in strong support of H.R. 4641. This is a very important bipartisan step forward to combat opioid abuse. This issue hits close to home, all of our homes. The State of Oregon ranked near the top or at the top for nonmedical use of prescription pain relievers in the Nation. With opioid prescriptions serving as a gateway to heroin, it is no surprise that deaths from drug overdoses have surpassed those of car accidents in my State. Last week, in Medford, Bend, and Hermiston, I hosted roundtables with community leaders and affected families to talk about what they are seeing on the front lines. Physicians, first responders, members of law enforcement, and families all were there sharing their stories, talking about how important the work we are doing here today is to them and our communities. All of them are on the ground combating this problem every day. We had excellent discussions. H.R. 4641, in addition to the 17 other bipartisan bills we are voting on this week, will help combat this epidemic. This bill will help prevent lawful prescription use from spiraling into abuse by developing best practices for the treatment of pain. In Medford, I heard from a father who had seen the impacts of addiction on his own family. His sister, who was a nurse, died of an overdose after years of suffering from addiction and bouncing between pharmacies, passing off forged prescriptions. He spoke about how better tracking and treatment could have helped catch his sister's problem earlier and, perhaps, made counseling more effective. As it was, she was only caught because two pharmacies in a small town happened to check with each other. You see, by then, it was too late. Today, this man is working to help his son with an addiction that started with a prescription for a high school sports injury that drifted into a heroin addiction. He spoke to the importance of counseling, support, and trying to avoid addiction through better prescribing practices. Echoing those sentiments, a therapist I spoke to in Hermiston experienced 10 years of addiction of opioids after she was prescribed painkillers for a broken foot. Then when she tried to overcome this addiction, she could not find any help. So she traveled more than 5 hours, from Milton-Freewater, Oregon, to Marysville, Washington, because she could not find a physician in her region to prescribe Suboxone, an important medicine to help people break free from opioids. Addiction is an equal opportunities destroyer. It crosses all segments and regions of our country, and often the disease shows no symptoms. One emergency room physician relayed a story about a recent patient he had no reason to believe had an addiction problem until he saw in the database that the patient just received 60 pills the week before. Opioids are highly effective at providing relief and improving the quality of life for those in debilitating pain. But if we don't know how to appropriately prescribe them, it's no wonder we got to this place. We need to increase access to counseling, medication-assisted therapy and treatment for those battling addiction. Echoing what I heard from health practitioners across my district, opioid addiction is a biopsychosocial disease--it's as complicated as diabetes and requires a multi-pronged approach. That's why it is so important that we pass H.R. 4641 and all of these bills this week to give health providers, first responders, law enforcement, and those battling addiction the tools they need to overcome the epidemic of opioid abuse.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend Judge Terry Tallman for his many years of dedicated public service in Morrow County. Terry is set to retire at the end of his term after serving 18 years as Morrow County Judge, the longest in history, and I would like to pay tribute to his leadership for the people of Morrow County and the Columbia Basin. Terry grew up working on his family's farm in Adrian, Oregon. After graduating high school in 1963, Terry continued working on the farm until he joined the Navy amidst the Vietnam War in 1969. Serving aboard the USS Kitty Hawk, Terry was responsible for maintaining the ship's ultrasound systems and making repairs on the aircraft, skills he enjoyed learning and putting to use. It was through the Navy that Terry met Cheryl, his wife of 42 years. While stationed in California the couple was introduced by Cheryl's brother with whom Terry served. The two were married in 1974 following Terry's discharge from the Navy. Terry then took the opportunity to attend college at both the University of Oregon and Oregon State University before returning to the family farm in Adrian. With the continuing development of irrigated agriculture in the Columbia Basin at the time, Terry and his brother saw a wonderful opportunity to put their skills to use on their own, and, in 1978, Terry and Cheryl moved to the Boardman area. After establishing a successful custom farming operation in Boardman, Terry began to take interest in serving his community. His efforts and success on the City of Boardman Planning Commission led numerous community members to encourage him to run for Mayor of the City of Boardman, a position he won and held for 5 years. In 1999, the position of County Judge was vacated and Terry successfully ran for the seat. Since then, Terry's career has been marked by an impressive long term vision for Morrow County. His skill at administering the county budget and staying fiscally responsible has left the county in a markedly better financial position. Under Terry's leadership, Morrow County has seen substantial growth in a broad range of economic activities from wind turbine projects to value-added agriculture processing and data centers. With federal forests, an Army chemical depot and a Navy bombing range located within the county, communities experience plenty of federal hurdles while striving to grow their economies. Terry and I worked closely on many of these issues as he made sure the needs of the local communities were not ignored by the federal government. Throughout, I appreciated and counted on his counsel and suggestions as we plotted a path forward to a solution. Whether it was wind energy and transmission line development on the edge of the bombing range, or ensuring the Army turns the Umatilla Depot land over to the communities as planned, I knew I would find Terry in the middle of the issue working to foster economic growth and balance the national security needs at the sites. Thanks to Terry's dedicated efforts over the past 18 years to tackle these issues and invest in the future, Morrow County has welcomed that growth with room to take advantage of new opportunities ahead. As Terry begins his transition into retirement, I know he will look forward to free time to spend with his 3 children and grandchild, as well as plenty of time to spend doing what he loves on his farm again. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, please join me in recognizing and thanking my good friend, Judge Terry Tallman, for his many years of leadership and wise counsel in Morrow County.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 23 World War II veterans from Oregon who will be visiting their memorial in Washington, D.C. through Honor Flight of Oregon. On behalf of a grateful state and country, we welcome these heroes to our nation's capital. The veterans on this flight from Oregon are as follows: Clifford W. Anderson, Army; Bernard D. Brown, Army; Charles E. Brown, Army; Donald S. Doughton, Army; Wayne G. Homes, Army; Alvin W. Mohr, Army; Mikio Tamiyasu, Army; Delmar G. Wilks, Army; William A.P. Lawrence, Army Air Forces; Robert E. Parry, Army Air Forces; John T. Reeves, Army Air Forces; Ray A. Snook, Army Air Forces; Richard L. Harriman, Merchant Marines; William D. Alder, Navy; Alvin O. Bradford, Navy; George W. Hayes, Navy; Gorder R. Hoefer, Navy; John T. Hyer, Navy; Raymond M. Mader, Navy; James D. Walker, Navy; William E. Wetmore, Navy; George W. Zentgraf, Navy; and Jeanne E. Heuett, Women's Army Corps. These 23 heroes join the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 veterans who traveled to Washington, D.C. from their home states in 2016, adding to the more than 150,000 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. I would also like to recognize the nine volunteers traveling on this trip who have also served our country: Eden R. Brown, Army Air Forces; Clement K. Hyer, Army; James E. Morley, Army; Theodore J. Riehl, Army; Marc R. Snook, Army; Michael Allegre, Army Air Forces; George W. Hyes, Marine Corps; and William M. Lawrence, Navy. These brave men and women put their lives on the line for our freedom, and they continue their dedication to service by contributing to this great cause and honoring those that came before them. Mr. Speaker, each of us is humbled by the courage of these brave Americans who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today. My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long), another distinguished member of our Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the motion because the instruction contains matter in the jurisdiction of a committee to which the bill was not referred, thus violating clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires the amendment to be germane to the measure being amended. Committee jurisdiction is a central test of germaneness, and I am afraid I must insist on my point of order.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would again urge opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney). Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, this one is a little more insidious than the last one because what it does is precisely what the gentleman says it does. It says, ``Nothing in this act can affect the FCC's authority to act in the public interest, convenience, or necessity.'' And he is right. That term of art is all over communications law. Let me make that clear: all over communications--it is so broad, you can drive a rate-regulated truck back through it, a de facto after-the-fact regulation. And that is the point. When you give the bureaucracy wide-open language that says ``in the public interest,'' it sounds good on its face, but the practical impact for someone who wants to regulate, it is on their own authority, they go, well, we think that rate is in the public interest to bring down after the fact. See, then what we have done is empower others unelected to make decisions based on a term of art which, while it may be pervasive, is also wide open. That is what we are trying to avoid here, Mr. Chairman. See, the FCC could say, we are not going to rate regulate unless we want to rate regulate because we will determine on our own whether it is in the public interest to do so. All that sounds good, ``public interest'' sounds good, and it is good and it is an important part of our law, but in this case, remember where we start. Until Chairman Wheeler was directed, in effect, by the White House to treat the Internet like an old utility, none of this was regulated. That is the vibrant Internet we have today, and that is what Republicans are trying to preserve, an open Internet. We are all with you on blocking and throttling and pay prioritization and those issues. I have got draft legislation to legally say no to all of that. But when it comes to suffocating innovation in the marketplace and new offerings to consumers and really the vibrant competition that has been out here to this point, we have to draw a line with our friends. They say you don't want to tariff in advance, and we are with them on that, but the worst thing--the worst thing--when you are in business is the uncertainty of after-the-fact decisionmaking by your regulator-- after-the-fact decisionmaking by your regulator. Unfortunately, Mr. McNerney's proposal here, his amendment would allow that door to remain open, allow the agency to have this unfettered authority. Now, we have got provisions throughout the bill and in other law, both at State and Federal level, to protect consumers against fraud and to protect consumers on truth-in-billing. All those things are there. Those protections remain. Our sole purpose here and why we have been very narrow and specific and clear in our legislation is rate regulation is not something the FCC should take on. Consumers should have that power and authority, and people who want to innovate against the giant companies out there should be able to enter that marketplace with creative new packages that allow consumers to make choices and not have to go to Washington, D.C., and seek privilege and an audience with the chairman to find out if what they are proposing might be okay after the fact if they do it. Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to Mr. McNerney's amendment. He is a good member of the committee. I like working with him, but in this case, the amendment is horribly flawed and would do grave damage to the marketplace. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALDEN. What I think would be really good is you withdraw your amendment and vote for the underlying bill that is really clear in its scope and faith and is a really good legislative product.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment states that nothing in the bill shall affect the FCC's authority to require that TV and radio stations and video and audio satellite providers make their public inspection files available online or in a machine-readable format. Mr. Chairman, I was in the radio business for 21 years. I would guess I am probably one of the few, if only, people who have actually had to maintain a public file. I don't know if the gentleman knows all the things that are in those public files. I would be happy to go through the very long list of them. I don't think the way the amendment is constructed is perhaps what he is seeking. I understand the part about public disclosure of time purchase, who is purchasing it, and all of that. But the public file includes all FCC authorizations, applications and related materials, contour maps, ownership reports and related materials, portions of Equal Employment Opportunity file, the public and broadcasting manual itself, children's television programming reports, DTV transition education reports, citizen agreements, then the political file, letters and emails from the public, material relating to FCC investigations and complaints, issues/program lists, donor lists for noncommercials educational channels, records concerning children's programming commercial limits, local public notice certifications and announcements, time brokerage agreements, must-carry or retransmission consents elections, joint sales agreements, and it goes on and on. Ours was a full drawer. We were just a little AM and FM radio station, and it was a full drawer in a filing cabinet. By the way, if you didn't have each file in the proper order, you could be fined. You had to have the political catechism in there. You had to have all these things. I understand what the gentleman is going for, and I am for disclosure. We had to do it. We did it. People came and looked at the file. It was all open and transparent, and now it does have to be online already. I just think this is an inappropriate place to go down this other path, when we are dealing with rate regulation of the Internet. I realize the gentleman cares passionately about the political disclosure issue, but I would just argue, Mr. Chair, that this is the wrong place. I think the amendment is clumsily worded in terms of the scope and magnitude that would occur in terms of making all this machine- readable. Because I am thinking about a little AM radio station out there that is barely keeping the doors open, and we are going to tell them they have got to have their contour maps machine-readable? I don't even know how to do that. I know some programs like Adobe you can click, and some you can't. I don't know. It is a pretty big new requirement on these stations. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise for my closing statement to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Again, I think it is overly broad. Beyond that, the gentleman from Kentucky kind of hit it on the head when he said that this doesn't require the FCC to do anything in terms of the machine-readable technology and all. Because, in theory, in reality, the way it is written, it basically says: nothing in this bill prevents them from doing something, by the way, which they can already do. The whole point, though, is this has nothing to do with the issue at hand in the legislation. Our constituents really believe we should take one issue at a time. The issue here is about controlling a bureaucracy from doing something it has never had the power to do before: giving clarity in the marketplace, that they cannot regulate the rates of Internet service providers, which, in effect, has the ability of regulating innovation in new offerings for consumers. So I must oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do appreciate the comments by my friend, and I consider her a good friend. We have worked together on a lot of issues successfully and have found common ground time and time again. Then there are days like today when we just see things differently and, perhaps, read them differently. That is what democracy is, after all, all about: competing ideas that come to an open marketplace where we can have an up-or-down vote by the people's Representatives. Let me talk about a couple of things, Mr. Chair. First of all, there is the issue of net neutrality, itself. As my friend from California knows, I put together a draft bill in January of 2015--nearly a year and a half ago now. That bill read: no blocking, no paid prioritization, no throttling, and it required transparency, which are the core principles of an open Internet order. My colleagues on this side of the aisle are for all of those things. The door remains open for Democrats to join us in sponsoring that legislation. We looked forward to that, hopefully, in going forward, but we couldn't reach agreement on those very clear positions. My colleague said, Gee, they are for not having the Federal Communications Commission regulate rates for broadband Internet access service. I think that is an accurate description of what the gentlewoman said she was for. Let me go to page 3 of the bill and just, simply, read from line 6, section 2: ``Regulation of broadband rates prohibited.'' Line 7: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet access service.'' That is what this bill does. Now, here is where people may get a little confused because, on the one hand, we say no tariffing. That means no setting of the rates ahead of time. We agree that that is a bad idea. You have heard that from both sides of the aisle here. Yet, you see, the door that remains cracked open is the one they refuse to close; so the chilling winter air of regulatory overreach blows through that crack in the door because, if you don't close the ability of the agency to come in after the fact and say ``what you did on your rates we no longer think is correct,'' then you have after-the-fact rate regulation, which is even more uncertain than up-front tariffing, than an up-front setting of the rates. It is with this that we find ourselves in disagreement with my friends across the aisle. You see, they are willing to say no tariffing in advance, but they are not willing to close the door that allows the chilly air that will freeze out innovation--a post-action regulation-- from occurring. Having been in small business for 20-plus years earlier in my life and in the radio business, I know what regulation is. I know how to follow them. I know what a public file is. I actually kept them and did all of these things in our little radio station; but I cannot imagine if, after the fact, my regulator could come back and say: Do you know those ads you sold to the local car dealer? Even though they were printed on your rate card and they were publicly disclosed and all of that, we think, maybe, that was a little too high. So you have to go back and you have to change things. There is no definition of how far back they could go. Could they go back 6 months? A year? 2 years? 10 years? I don't know. See, I guess you get to the point that the Internet thrives today in an environment where it was never regulated. That is what really made it go off the charts, is the innovators in Silicon Valley and I daresay in my district, in Oregon, and elsewhere, all over the world literally. There is no central-only point of innovation when it comes to the Internet and technology. It is global. The economy has flourished globally and has done all that without three Commissioners--or two Commissioners and one Chairman, three people in America deciding what you can and can't do. You have got to go: Mama, can I? Daddy, can I? Can I after the fact? Is it going to be okay? This is the new environment when you treat the Internet like an old, black, dial-up phone. Fundamentally, that is what Chairman Wheeler decided to do with pressure from the White House. They lost their independence as an agency when they went down this path to say that the Internet is now like an old phone line. Or, as you heard the former member of the Public Utility Commission from North Dakota, my friend, Mr. Cramer, who was in the rate regulation business, say, the Internet, it is not appropriate to regulate it as an old common carrier, an old railroad system that is a monopoly because the Internet is not a monopoly. We want innovation for consumers. We want the competition in the marketplace that we know drives down prices. When you have three people in America wanting to set the rates after the fact, which is what would happen in the FCC with a partisan Commission, as it is constructed today, they get to make the call, not consumers who say: you know, I kind of like that Binge On thing. That is new and innovative. And the Chairman will say: Well, yeah. We let that go. We think that is okay. That is the point. The Chairman got to say: We think that is okay. Prior to title II regulation, the chairman didn't have a say in that. The marketplace did. The consumers could go: I don't like that, so I am going to that carrier. Some other carrier can say: I don't like what they're doing, and I am going to offer you this. Now all that is going to get second-guessed by a government that is too big and is too much in our lives, and that is only going to get more regulatory in its scope and scheme. Finally, let me just restate the argument raised earlier that somehow consumers could be hurt by truth-in-billing fraud or paid prioritization. We specifically addressed those in the bill that came to the floor. We listened to our colleagues. We listened to those who testified. We made changes in the bill. We didn't do everything that everybody wanted because this is a compromise process. It is a good piece of legislation that protects consumers, encourages innovation, and does what our constituents want us to do: draw clear statutory lines that agencies have to follow, not devolve all authority to them. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of H.R. 2666. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who has an incredible background in rate regulation and the commission there and is a terrific member of our subcommittee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, may I get an update on the time remaining on each side?