Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

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 must rise in opposition to this amendment.

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 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. 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. 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 reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Hurd for his leadership on this issue. I want to thank as well the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for helping us out on this, and certainly Chairman Michael McCaul. This answer by the TSA makes no sense from a security standpoint and hurts our smaller communities that may go from time to time without air service but clamor for air service. If you are a big airport and you lose a carrier, you probably have several others there serving the people of that area. If you are a small airport and you have one carrier, as is the case in Klamath Falls, Oregon, in June of 2014, when SkyWest pulled out, they had no other carriers, so they immediately began to seek additional air service. The city of Klamath Falls acted diligently. They recruited a new partner, Peninsula Airways, in July of 2015, so like a year later they had somebody in line and everything was working out. They go to TSA, and TSA says: No, we are not coming back. Their answer was to reverse screen. I said: Well, what is that? Well, that means you board the 28- or 30-passenger airplane with all your luggage, everything else, and then you fly--in this case 236 miles north to Portland, Oregon, Oregon's largest city--then you deplane on the tarmac, and you come back through like you had just driven up. Well, that is an interesting way to provide security for the Nation's communities and airplanes because that means you have flown right up the entire length of Oregon, from the California border down here in Klamath Falls all the way to Portland. Now, let me put that in an East Coast perspective for you. That would be like boarding a plane in Raleigh-Durham International Airport down in Raleigh, North Carolina, and then you would fly all the way up to Reagan Washington National Airport, up to DCA here. Actually, we go 4 miles farther in Oregon, but we will leave that aside for the moment, 232 miles versus 236. Then you get off the airplane here at Reagan National, and then we will screen you. We will find out what you are carrying, what is in your bags, and then we will put you on a connecting flight. Does anybody think that is good security? Does anybody think that people who want to do us harm aren't going to figure that gaping hole out? Portland International Airport was willing to work with us, but it made no sense. So we pleaded with TSA: Can't you come back? You were here before. It won't take much. And they basically said no. And that is what brings us here today. For our Nation's security, for the economic security of our small communities, we need to pass this bipartisan legislation. On a side note, the Nation's only F-15 training unit is in Klamath Falls at Kingsley Airfield. So our F-15 pilots have to come out now, and rather than fly into Klamath Falls, they have to fly into an airport that is at least, well, on a bad day probably 2 hours over the mountains, and then come over. So we are paying all that extra transportation cost, we are paying hotels, everything else, delaying their access to training, and that doesn't make sense, either. So let's be safe and secure. Let's be smart and prudent. Let's pass this legislation and allow our communities to have the air service they need and our country to have the security that we demand. This is commonsense legislation that we need to pass. I thank both sides of the aisle for their great work on this with us. Together, we are going to do the right policy even when TSA wouldn't.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend Mike Hayward for his many years of dedicated public service in Wallowa County. Mike has retired after serving 19 years on the Wallowa County Board of Commissioners, serving 15 of those years as Chairman, and I would like to pay tribute to his leadership for the people of Wallowa County and northeastern Oregon. Born and raised in Pullman, Washington, Mike developed an early affinity for the outdoors, taking jobs in agriculture in his youth before going on to earn a degree in forestry from Washington State University. While at Washington State, he earned a summer internship that stationed him at Wallowa Lake State Park in Joseph, Oregon. After graduation, he was hired on full time at the park, which is where he eventually met his future wife, Beverly. Mike's work with Oregon State Parks took him around the state, but in 1980, he and Bev felt the pull to return to Wallowa County and be closer to their family. Shortly thereafter, Mike took his management skills into the private sector when he and Bev bought Eagle Cap Chalets at the base of the Wallowa Mountains, which they managed for 8 years. Surrounded by federally managed public forest and range lands, timber and livestock production has long been the base of Wallowa County's economy. Mike's knowledge of forestry and agriculture as well as several years of community leadership roles, including a seat on the Joseph City Council and time spent directing the local Chamber of Commerce, led several of his close friends to suggest he run for County Commissioner in 1997. Since then, Mike has constantly kept a sharp eye out for opportunities to represent and defend the County's interests as a leader of a number of organizations including the Grand Ronde Model Watershed Council, Northeast Oregon Housing Authority, Association of Oregon Counties, Wallowa-Union Railroad, and several regional forestry collaboratives and resource advisory committees. When 57 percent of your county is controlled and often mismanaged by the federal government, working to grow the economy and opportunities for the local communities can be an understandably frustrating process at times. Yet, Mike's knowledgeable, hard-working and even-keeled approach led him to become recognized as a leader on public lands and other natural resource issues affecting counties across eastern Oregon. Over the years, I got to know Mike well and came to rely on this counsel as well. Whether it is travel management plans on the Wallowa- Whitman, or the on-going Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision process, I appreciated Mike's useful input and insight as we worked together to find creative solutions to the challenges facing Wallowa County and their neighbors in northeast Oregon. As Mike takes on his new role as General Manager for the Wallowa County Grain Growers, his retirement from elected office doesn't mean Wallowa County will be losing his leadership or knowledge. Dedicated to his community, I know Mike will find a number of ways to continue serving and giving back. For the last six years, Mike and Bev have donated and served a community wide Thanksgiving Dinner in Enterprise. Such acts of generosity are a perfect example of the dedication Mike has shown over the years to the fellow members of his community. Above all, Mike is dedicated to his family. He and Bev returned to the county over 36 years ago to be closer to family, and I know that he is now looking forward to having a little more time to spend with his wife and grandchild. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, please join me in recognizing and thanking my good friend, Mike Hayward, for his many years of leadership in Wallowa County. I wish Mike all the best in his new pursuits.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the many nurse practitioners (NPs) in Oregon and nationwide who work hard to provide quality health care to patients. Today, I'm meeting with Nancy Cavanaugh, a pediatric NP from Central Point, Oregon. Nancy practices at La Clinica's school-based health centers, including at Crater High School in Central Point. NPs like Nancy are the health provider of choice for millions of Americans seeking primary care, pediatric care, disease education, and other preventative services. Along with clinical nurse specialists (CNSs), certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and physician assistants (PAs), NPs serve many patients as their main source of care, especially in rural areas where a physician isn't always readily available. Despite this important role, these clinicians remain unable to order home health services for the Medicare patients under their care. This impediment results in an administrative and paperwork burden, creating an unnecessary step in care delivery. That is why I introduced H.R. 1342, the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 2015, which would ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care they need in a timely manner by allowing NPs, CNSs, CNMs and PAs to order home health services, if their state allows it. By easing administrative burdens and permitting nurse practitioners like Nancy to order and certify home health services, the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act would help deliver needed care to patients, especially in areas where access to health care is limited. Oregon's seniors should be able to receive this important care in a timely fashion, because no one should be forced to choose between receiving health care and remaining in his or her home. Please join me in thanking Nancy and her fellow NPs for their hard work on behalf of patients.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who brings extensive experience in all of this realm, of both electric and communications, based on his vast background on this during his days on the Public Utility Commission in North Dakota. He has been a huge asset on our subcommittee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers on our side of the aisle, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to thank my colleague from Iowa who has been a great partner in finding the right sweet spot here as we move forward on more telecommunication policy that will help us allow these great innovators and inventors to go out and serve our constituents and offer competition in the marketplace and, not just because they are small, be snuffed out by a government that requires things they can't afford to do and takes money away from innovation. They still have to, as you know, follow all of the laws and all of the protections and all of that. It is just this reporting requirement seemed pretty onerous. In fact, obviously, the FCC thought it was when they first came out with their rule. We concur with that and extend that exemption on out. I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, I am really proud of the bipartisan work that Mr. Loebsack, myself, and others have done on our subcommittee. This marks the fifth piece of legislation that we have brought to the House floor in this Congress in one capacity or another. We passed the FCC consolidated reporting legislation, Mr. Speaker, unanimously across this House floor. This is designed to deal with the antiquated statutory requirements on reports that aren't needed, oftentimes aren't completed, and, yet, cost money to taxpayers and those who pay fees. So we have a consolidated report that is designed to simplify that process, save taxpayers money, and decrease the Federal bureaucracy a bit. That is over in the Senate now, Mr. Speaker. We passed FCC process reform legislation that we reached bipartisan agreement on as well. I think it passed unanimously through the House, Mr. Speaker. This is really important because we are trying to shed a little light on the FCC's activities and bring fairness and transparency to the Federal Communications Commission so that the public, the consumers, the stakeholders, all have a better opportunity to see how policy that will affect them is being deliberated and considered or even what is proposed. That bill is over in the Senate. Then we dealt with the issue of what we call the DOTCOM Act to make sure that, when the contract runs out on how the Internet naming agency and all works and all the IANA and ICANN pieces, that consumers are protected and will continue to have free Internet, free from government intrusion, free, as it has been, to innovate and create this enormous change. That passed the House I think with over 380 votes. The Spectrum Pipeline legislation actually was part of the bipartisan budget agreement we passed at the end of last year. So that is now in law, as a matter of fact. This marks, as I say, our fifth initiative to try to help this great sector of our economy continue to expand, that provides access to the world, and provides access to commerce and jobs in a rural setting. I can't tell you how important this is in a district such as mine where people now can locate in a smaller community, in a rural environment, with a great lifestyle, connect into the Internet, and be able to conduct commerce and grow jobs. Mr. Speaker, this is a fine piece of legislation, represents really solid work, and is really important to a lot of start-up and small companies across our country that we need to help grow, expand, and be the next competitor and the next one to really move up and give all us consumers more competition and better service. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to join us in bipartisan support of this legislation, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, is also supported by the administration. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman for his participation in this process and debate. I look forward to working with him on these issues. I share his concern, and I appreciate his participation. As I say, the door is always open and happy to continue. We all want the same outcome here for our consumers. Mr. Speaker, finally, I failed to include in the Record a letter of support for our underlying bill signed by the heads of the American Cable Association; CCA; CTIA; United States Telecom Association; WISPA, the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association; WTA, Advocates for Rural Broadband, the rural broadband coalition; and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, so I would like to include that in the Record in support of this effort. March 15, 2016. Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce, Washington, DC. Hon. Frank Pallone, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Commerce, Washington,

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he my consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta). He is a very capable and able vice chair of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and a man from Ohio who has done incredible work on a whole range of these communications issues.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 640, I call up the bill (H.R. 4596) to ensure that small business providers of broadband Internet access service can devote resources to broadband deployment rather than compliance with cumbersome regulatory requirements, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished and very effective majority leader of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important responsibilities we have as a Congress, I think, is to protect and advocate for those who may not have the power themselves or the influence or the armies of lawyers to contend with the redtape that all too often is created by our own government. The bill we are considering today helps them. It does just that. It relieves, we believe, an unnecessary regulatory burden on really small Internet service providers, the little ISPs out there all over our districts across the land that are struggling to compete in this marketplace. By extending an exemption to the Federal Communications Commission's enhanced transparency rules, this bill allows these small businesses to focus on their core mission which, by the way, is providing broadband Internet access to customers all across America. Over the last few months, we have spent a great deal of time focused on this issue. We first raised concerns with the Federal Communications Commission itself in a November letter from the Republican members of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, as well as the Small Business Committee. We urged the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler, to not only make the exemption that they had already had in their rules permanent, but also to raise that threshold for defining what a small business is to bring it in line with the definitions previously blessed by the Small Business Administration itself. Well, the FCC, instead, extended the exemption for just 1 year. That is hardly time enough from these very onerous reporting requirements to make a difference, a 1-year extension. Despite the overwhelming support in the record for a permanent extension, it was clear that Congress needed to act because the FCC wouldn't. So I introduced a discussion draft to get the conversation going that would permanently extend the exemption and would increase the threshold by defining a small business to match the definition used by the Small Business Administration itself. We had a hearing in January on this draft. We heard from a small business, an Internet service provider from a small community, who shared the dilemma that I think was indicative of what other small ISPs face in these circumstances. Should they put up new equipment and expand and improve their service? Or if they have to comply with all these reporting requirements called for by the FCC, they said, look, I am going to have to spend the money, instead, on hiring lawyers and other compliance officers to meet a reporting requirement that is new. Should they improve service for customers, or should they devote those financial resources to sifting through regulatory language and drafting expensive and extensive reports on esoteric metrics like ``packet loss''? Now, often these small Internet service providers provide service to areas in the country that are rural, very rural, remote, or may not be as easy to serve or provide competitive options to customers of larger ISPs. We should be making all efforts to promote the viability of these upstarts, these businesses, these small entrepreneurs that are trying to fill the gaps, serve and compete in this very competitive marketplace. We should not be saddling them with additional requirements designed to snuff them out, basically, and that would make it more difficult for them to do the business that they want to participate in. While there was some initial disagreement about how to ease some of these regulatory burdens, Mr. Speaker, Representative Loebsack and I were able to come to a compromise through some very serious negotiations. It worked out well, the legislative process. We both agreed there is a problem. We said, okay, I don't really like this number; what about that number? We kept a focus on the mission and on the goal, which was to prevent this overreach of the Federal Government in the regulatory realm. So in our amended bill, we extend the exemption from this reporting requirement to 5 years. It seems like a reasonable number. This gives greater regulatory certainty to these very small Internet service providers looking for stability and predictability when they are making some, frankly, pretty expensive investment decisions on equipment and access and expansion. In addition, we increased the threshold for what is defining a small business from what the FCC had, and required the Federal Communications Commission to report back to Congress on this exemption, along with data about small ISPs that is currently lacking. They don't have all the data we think they need, so as their overseer, we are telling the FCC, go look at this, tell us what it means, come back to us. And we put a sunset on this as well so that Congress will have the opportunity in a couple of years to come back and say this makes sense; does it still make sense; is it in the best interest of consumers and innovation and development of technology in the marketplace. In the end, I think this legislation represents a really solid, thoughtful compromise that will relieve the burdens for our smallest Internet service providers while leaving in place really important protections for consumers, Mr. Speaker. See, this does not wipe out what they have to do to serve customers, the laws they have to follow, all that. That stays. We just said, you don't have to do this really burdensome, costly, technical reporting to the government. It is important to note that this bill does not affect the bright- line rules for managing traffic or the transparency rules adopted in the FCC's 2010 rules. Customers will continue to have access to those disclosures they have come to expect, with the information needed to make informed decisions about their Internet service. So I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo, as well as, certainly, Mr. Loebsack, for working well with us on this bill. I would like to particularly thank Kelsey Guyselman, from the majority committee staff, and Ashley Shillingsburg from Representative Loebsack's staff--I hope I said that right--for their hard work in getting together and working this out. This bipartisan process has resulted in a strong piece of legislation, and I am confident it will actually protect many and promote continued network investment and build-out by small business so we have a more vibrant, competitive marketplace and more service into areas that otherwise might not ever get access to high-speed broadband which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is really important in places like Tennessee and Oregon and Iowa. This legislation represents a commonsense approach to a problem that directly impacts so many of our constituents, and this solution will enable our country to continue its leadership in broadband deployment. So I would urge my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.