tv House Rules Committee Hearing for Legislation on Net Neutrality and... CSPAN April 9, 2019 4:32am-6:51am EDT
subcommittee life wednesday at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3. announcer: on tuesday, the house is expected to take up a bill reversing the fcc's 2017 repeal of net neutrality rules. on wednesday, work as possible on a deal setting budget levels for the next two years. the house rules committee will meet to finalize both bills before they are put on the house floor. this hearing begins with the markup of the net neutrality bill. >> the rules committee will come to order. today the committee will be considering to considering two measures. the first is the save the internet act. this bill would reserve the trump fcc's net neutrality vote. simply put large corporations should not be in charge of what
americans see online. they should not be allowed to block or slow down internet or discriminate against content they don't like. a free and open internet is a critical part of enabling free speech and allowing our digital economy to thrive. trump fcc's net neutrality vote. simply put, large corporations should not be in charge of what americans see online. a free and open internet is a critical part of enabling free speech and allowing our digital economy to thrive. hr 1644 mirrors the congressional act bill that pass -- passed the senate last congress and had 182 bipartisan signers here in the house. an overwhelming majority of americans, 86% in a repeat poll is opposed to what the president's fcc has done. that includes 82% of republicans. we should continue that bipartisan spirit this congress and finally protect americans from abusive practices by internet service providers. the second measure is hr-2021, the investing for the people act. this bill would prevent deep and harmful cuts to discretionary programs established in the budget control act. without an agreement this year to lift these caps, nondefense discretionary funding will be
cut by $54 billion. that would mean drastic cuts to public health, education, band social -- and social service programs like food and housing assistance. and one third of all investment in this yea funds retvens -- veterans programs, diplomatic operations, foreign aid, and just department activities. -- justice department activities. it is important to get the budget process started now to give congress the guidance it it needs -- it needs to craft appropriations bills for fy-2020. before we hear from the witnesses, let me turn to mr. cole for any remarks he's like -- any remarks he would like to make. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. tonight is an opportunity to work to pass bipartisan legislation that will benefit all americans. we're considering two bills. one is a democratic take over of the internet. and the other is democratic -- a democratic proposal on budget caps.
both pieces of legislation could have been bipartisan and reflected solutions both parties could be proud of. instead, the majorities chose to bring up two partisan bills that do not reflect the input over the house. -- input of republicans in the house. on the first bill, which we should really call the democratic take over of the internet, republicans were ready and willing to work with democrats on bipartisan legislation to solve this problem. and common ground exists on the issue. republicans do indeed believe in an open and free internet, and we stand ready to work with our democratic friends on legislation to prevent practices like throttling wrg blocking practices like throttling, blocking that would put an open and free internet at risk. but democrats are putting forward a wildly partisan and wildly overinclusive bill that will impose a 1930's era regulatory system on the modern internet. there were other less heavy-handed and more bipartisan
ways to solve this problem, mr. chairman. and i think the failure to do so today is yet another lost chance for us as a committee and for the institution of the u.s. house of representatives. the second bill before us today concerns budget caps. as a former member of the budget committee, i know how important it is for the house to pass a budget each year. and let's be clear, this is not a budget. in fact, the democratic led budget committee didn't even attempt to write one this year. unfortunately, the bill before us is incomplete and lacks vision for the long-term future. it sets budget caps for only the next two years and does not provide the type of ten year plan for spending priergs and -- spending priorities and addressing the debt which the committee traditionally writes each year as a budget. this bill makes no effort to offset spends, something -- offset spending, something republicans did under every budget cap bill when we were in a majority and abdicates the responsibility of addressing the long-term drivers of our debt
for our children and grandchildren. the annual budget process should provide the opportunity for both parties to work together, set spending limits and address our long-term debt problem through reforms to mandatory spending. the democratic majority is making no pretense of hitting any of these goals, makish this yet another missed opportunity. we can and should do better than this, mr. chairman. when we return from the upcoming district weeks, i'm hopeful that the majority will decide to bring up bipartisan, bicameral piecess of legislation that will address major problems that need to be solved for the american people. as a reminder, this is a divided government. if my friends are ever going to show they can govern they'll have to stop focusing on partisan bills to score political points that amount to nothing more than show votes. there are plenty of areas we can -- areas where we can work together and i would encourage the democratic majority to do so. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and i just want to remind everybody the most urgent issue
is the need to raise statutory caps on discretionary funding. -- discretionary spending. because if not we're in for a disaster. and on the issue of net neutrality, i would just say to the gentleman, if i remember from the last congress, after the republican controlled senate actually passed something, we tried in this house to work with republicans to get something up. we even filed a discharge petition if i remember correctly. and we couldn't get anybody on your side to want to work with us. so that is -- so we are what we are and we want to move forward. again, we expect the senate would pick this up again and we can work out differences in conference and hopefully have a final product that everybody could agree on. so at this point, i want to welcome mr. doyle and mr. ladder. we're delighted to have you here, both on the emergency of -- committee of energy and commerce. and anything you brought in
writing will without objection be entered into the record. and i now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, for any opening remarks he may have. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for allowing me to testify before the rules committee in support of hr-1644, the save the internet act. this bill comes before the rules committee after much deliberation by the energy and commerce committee. in total, the committee has considered this issue and this legislation for more than 18 hours over the course of hearings and mark-ups since the beginning of this congress. during that time, we've heard from consumer advocates, minority and underrepresented communities, rural broadband providers, small businesses, innovators, entrepreneurs, and millions of constituents. all calling for the restoration of net neutrality rules. in addition, polls show more than 86% of all americans whether they be republicans, independents, or democrats,
oppose the fcc's appeal that the protections this bill reinstates. people around the country care deeply about a free and open internet. because it's critical for so many communities and sectors for -- of our economy. today, broadband connectivity touches almost every aspect of our economy, politics, and culture. this legislation would restore popular, bipartisan common sense net nuteraltyeutrality -- net neutrality protections. second, this bill gives the fcc the authority to protect consumers now and in the future through forward looking regulatory authority. third, this bill restores fcc legal authority to support broadband access and deployment programs through the universal service found. -- service fund.
these pay for the deployment of broadband and rural communities through the connect america fund and support access to working families, seniors, and veterans through the lifeline program. at the same time, the legislation takes a light touch approach towards the regulation of internet service providers. the save the internet act would codify the fcc's and in doing so permanently prohibit the fcc from applying the provisions that require rate setting, requiring that broadband providers unbundle their networks, or levying additional taxes or fees on broadband access. that being said, i want it to be clear that i believe it's important that the fcc have the tools and flexibility it needs to maintain a sustainability support mechanism for the universal service fund. and i would hope my colleagues would continue to work with us to achieve that end in the future. during consideration of this legislation, we made a number of changes to the bill as a result
of discussions with the minority, which we believe strengthen the bill. the first change was the inclusion of clarifying language to make clear the intent of this legislation, that congress is giving the fcc flexible forward looking authority to protect consumers from unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory practices while permanently prohibiting the fcc from applying unnecessary provisions that require things like rate setting or mandating network unbundling. second, at the suggestion of the minority, we added a temporary exemption that allow smaller isp's more time to come into compliance with the 2015 open internet orders and enhanced transparency rules. the legislation that you are considering here today charts a new course for net neutrality and would put in place 21st century rules for a 21st century internet. i look forward to advancing this legislation to the floor and ultimately through congress so
that we can restore these essential protections for all americans. i'm happy to answer any questions members of the committee may have regarding the bill, and i thank you for your time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there we go. again, thanks for having us this afternoon to testify on hr-1644. and very rapid succession, the majorities take over of the internet has been through a legislative hearing followed by a subcommittee and full committee markups on a party line vote. this rushed process has left open several critical questions raised in the hearing and markups about exactly how much authority this bill gives to the fcc, exactly what it may or may
not prevent the fcc from doing in the nurture, and exactly what the impact of this heavy handed approach would be on american innovation, investment, and our ability to close the digital divide. the majority is using the issue of net neutrality to jam through a trojan horse. no blocking, no throttling. we have a strong bipartisan consensus to codify these rules. every member of this committee needs to understand that fundamentally, this bill is not a net neutrality bill. floor,this race to the the clear goal has been instead the majority wants to invest the fcc with sweeping powers of title 2 to regulate every aspect of the broadband internet service. they want the government to have the power to tax the internet, take control of private networks or even regulate speech online. we offered amendments of full
committee to close the doors to these other powers related to this bill. the majority claims the before -- it was rejected. we offered an amendment protecting the next generation of wireless networks, 5g that is incompatible with the network slicing technology needed to realize the problem of 5g. that, too, was rejected. most shockingly, the majority even rejected an amendment passed unianimously by the house to relieve some of our internet service providers from some of the most burdensome rules. order. the fcc's i filed two amendments to be considered for the floor that will help address some of these 1644, and thisr
committee should make them in order. i hope we keep in mind it doesn't have to be this way. and made it clear for them it is all of title 2 or nothing. the draft proposed by the last democratic chairman, henry waxman, back when democrats insisted you don't need to take over the internet to write a net neutrality bill. republicans stands ready to work with our colleagues on bipartisan consensus on net technology rules. -- net neutrality rules. it does not need title ii. all it needs is a congress willing to work together on solutions. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> thank you both for being here. i have no questions. >> i will be very, very brief.
mr. doyle, mr. lauder indicated in his testimony that he introduced two bills -- was it two or three, there's three bills, and he referred to them as my bills, meaning his bills. did he discuss with you the three bills? >> thank you, mr. hastings. the first time we found out about the three bills that the republicans dropped was the day of the first hearing. we had no prior notice that they were dropping bills. we had no contact from the republicans indicating that they wanted to sit down and work on this legislation with us. so, it was sort of a surprise the day of the first hearing that these three bills were dropped, and that's the first we knew about them. >> it's sort of a hackneyed phrase, but it takes two to tango.
i consider always each side, we blame the other for not being bipartisan. but, if no one approaches, and i would think the way mr. lauder approached it by indicating that it was my bill, meaning his, which he's entitled to. but at the same time, if it was to be bipartisan it would seem to me you and the mow jrt would -- and the majority, that you would have been contacted just as when you were in the minority if you sought something from the majority, you would have contacted them. that's how i think things ought to go. but then, i've been mystified for a long time here. thank you all. >> thank you very much. mr. cole. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked unanimous consent to insert it into the record the administration policy on hr 1 644. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me quote a couple of things from that statement if i may. first, quote, since the new rule
was adopted in 2018, consumers have benefitted from a greater than 35% increase in average fixed broadband download speeds, and the united states rose to 6 from 13th in the worldfor these speeds. -- in the world for these speeds. in 2018, fiber was also made available to more new homes than in any previous year in capital investment by the nation's top six internet service providers increased by $2.3 billion. that means an approach is working. quote, on to say that hr-1644 would tie the hands of the commission in the future and prevent agency from evolving its rules to adapt for emerging technologies. again, i think important considerations as we go forward. we did get obviously two very different versions of views of how bipartisan this was. let me ask you this, was there any meaningful outreach or
discussion back and forth in your view? >> you know, mr. doyle and i had a conversation then and reached out to the republicans willing to work together to come up with a net neutrality, that the legislation we had introduced, my bill in particular was mr. waxler's bill when he was chairman of the energy commerce committee that showed no throttling, no blocking that he also specifically said no title 2. we also have the current chair of the committee and his statement from back then looking at those same issues and not looking at the title 2 provisions that you have. so, when you look at the gentlelady from washington state, the legislation that came out of a statehouse, the democrat statehouse signed by the governor, former member of the house, that showed they
worked together out there to get this through. and that's a piece of legislation she did. and then the rancor, mr. walden, had his legislation. and again, it was making sure we had those in place that we don't have the throttling block, the paid partisanation out there. i don't think this bill is going to have a chance but life we want to have something happen, when he together -- when he to work together now. >> a chance to respond if he chooses to. >> i don't dispute they dropped three bills. they just dropped them the day of the hearing and we didn't know about it in advance. i've been on the committee for 17 years now, most of it in the minority. and i have a -- i have been a part of sponsoring legislation with my republican friends during that time when i was in the minority. i always had to go to them. and generally if they had an
idea -- if i had an idea or amendment they agreed with, it would then be given to a mebl of -- to a member of the majority, and i would be the democratic sponsor of that amendment and that's how we proceeded. the emergency and commerce committees are fairly bipartisan committees and i think we try when possible to be bipartisan. the that wasn't how this worked. no one came to us. no one said, hey, you know, we'd like to chair a different approach. -- to share a different approach. we found out about it the day of the first hearing. >> well, certainly all the good ideas are from either side of the aisle. i understand there are 31 democrats -- and i'll pose this question to both of you. were there any meaningful democratic amendments to this product? >> i think there was one that was offered if i recall correctly, was on a small business. but, i think that's the only one.
but all of the republican amendments were -- did not go anywhere. i offered mine, and that didn't go anywhere. but, i think what we're seeing is that the fcc out there writing the rules and it should be congress. and i think that's what the people want to have is congress setting it into legislation and nut the fcc. -- and not the fcc. so, i think when we look at what's happened out there again as i said, we on our side are very willing to work on this. but, when you're looking at the title 2, it's not going to be going anywhere in the senate but i think we can get things done looking at the other areas people really have a concern on. >> mr. chairman? i would just say, mr. cole, that i've offered many wonderful amendments oz a member of the -- as a member of the minority on the commerce committee that members decided they didn't want to pass. i understand how it works. i'm sorry we didn't find any of their amendments the kind of amendments we felt we could support at this time.
but, we did take some notice of concerns they expressed on forbearance, and on the small business exemption, and we incorporated those into two democratic amendments enan -- amendments in attempt to reach out to the majority and say we hear your concerns and we're trying to address them. >> there were no meaningful amendments from your own side? was this bill that good? >> there were two amendments, one on forbearance and business exemption. and we did that by listening to some of the concerns from some of the minority. -- we heard from the minority. >> the term net neutrality used both by republicans and democrats alike, they often have very different context. and the key voice in this debate or one of them, what is your definition of net neutrality? >> right off the bat you want an open and free internet. that's what you want to make sure is out there. and also mentioned a bit earlier
that you don't have the throttling, the blocking, the paid partisanation. and i think when you talk to people out in the public they don't want this happening. i don't think people want to see you have an overbearing fcc come in. you don't know what they're going to come up with and you really want to have congress writing the rules. >> just to ask, and i'll pose to both of you if you like, but not all of us are as well versed as the two of you are on this topic. so, if you could tell me what the terms throttling, blocking and prioritization means to each one of you. >> so, think of the internet service providers as the middle man. they sit here. consumers over here, content providers over here. the whole idea of net neutrality is having a process where consumers can get to the content they want to see without that middle man blocking them from being able to do it. and on the content side, people
that have content that they want to get to consumers or products, that that does not get blood by the isp's. i'll give an example of blocking. at&t had a mapping service on their phone service. it was $5 a month. then, google came out with a free mapping service. at&t blocked google's free mapping service on their system because it was competing with their app that they were charging $5 a month for. that's blocking. that's something we don't allow anymore. throttling is degraded a service. a good example of that would have been netflix. and of course, paid prioritization is where someone pays more money, you know, to get their product through one way or the other way, faster than everyone else. you can see the implications that would have for innovation -- where the next great idea of some small entrepreneur hit a
-- with a grudge trying to complete with an established corporation getting their product on this side over to this side because they don't have the money to pay for priority service. those are the three bright lines that, by the way, we all agree on. democrats and republicans agree on the process of no blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. >> that's all in the bill? >> if i could follow up on that if i may. this bill does not deal with what we call the edge providers out there. that's your google, your facebook, your twitter. and so, the bill does nothing on that end. and so, when people see things on the news in the last year, it's on the edge site, not on the isp site. >> do you offer amendments to do -- to deal with those issues? >> i can't remember if there was
an amendment offered. >> well, thank you very much. i appreciate your responses. >> then i yield back. >> thank you very much. ms. torres? >> simply a question regarding 911 services. most landlines are on the wayside. -- gone by the wayside. most people have a cellphone or if they do have a land line it's voice-over internet, so it's an internet service provider providing 911 services. when it comes to -- when you talk about throttling, how does that impact the delivery of a 911 call? >> how does it impact the telephone call, is that what you're saying? i don't know that it does. throttling is -- we're defining it on the internet would degrade a service that's coming on the internet, someone trying to --
>> so degrading a service could be degrading the delivery of a 911 call which needs to be protected to ensure it's delivered to the psat. >> i'm not sure that applies to telephones. >> are you referring to a situation where that call would gain like over other calls at that time? in some cases, you've got a presumption out there that emergency calls could take priority to make sure those calls can get through. >> i'm using the internet to make phone calls, and one of those phone calls is to, you know, a 911 center versus someone using the same service to purchase, you know, a new car or realtor services. is my 911 call going to be degraded because, you know, we want that business call to get ahead? >> and again, we want to make sure that those calls on the emergency side do have the
ability to rise to the top, because we want to make sure the responders out there can get there. so it is making sure that happens. >> so from my perspective, when we talk about protecting internet services and we talk about ensuring that there is a system that is affordable, there is a system that is not going to be compromised simply because some -- you know, the haves and the have-nots, i want to make sure that it is a system that everyone can participate in regardless of how much you're able to pay. so, i am in support of this legislation. i'm really happy that it's moving forward. of all of the bills that we see here in congress, this is the one issue that my constituents are very concerned about. i have a large problem with homelessness. when people are applying for jobs. when people are applying to go to college, for example.
if they're not able to get online to fill out those applications because the library is closed and they're having to utilize their cellphones, and they're constantly losing signal because it's not a reliable network, that's a cause for concern. so, i want to make sure that we do everything that we can to ensure that we protect services for them. >> that's why the lifeline program is so important. and this bill also restores the legal underpinnings. this bill restores those legal underpinnings for lifeline and connect america, and you're talking about services that for veterans, for our seniors and for the poor, that's very important. and that's restored in this bill. >> and protecting lifeline is critically important, but ensuring that telephone companies also don't utilize this program as a way to offer,
you know, a cost savings plan at this rate, where the person who would be applying or would be utilizing the lifeline program is capped out at a certain amount. so, we want to make sure we protect the pricing for those users. and that is not a grant program that could be utilized for a higher program. >> thank you. mr. woodall? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you being here. i tell people back home the best part of my job is the subject experts come up every afternoon and i give private tutoring sessions on what's going on, and i get to respond to all the internet myths that have been mailed to me. i've got one. i hope you can set me straight. one of my constituents wrote in and said, rob, is it true that the house is getting ready to use a 1930s piece of legislation
-- getting ready to use a 1930's piece of legislation designed to regulate telephone monopolies and apply that to 21st internet in the name of promoting innovation? is that true? >> one of your constituents wrote you that? [laughter] >> a little skepticism about that. that's not true. and the reason that's not true is all the parts of title ii abell andy to the old m telephone, those were the provisions that were forebeared in the bill permanently. so none of these 1930's brick telephones are really part of this bill anymore. those are the sections that have been for born permanently. up until a few years ago, fcc
commissioners, chairman, they all saw what you're looking at with the internet as a information service and not a telecommunication service so it's not under title ii. at the same time, back to the 1996 act, you really wanted to make sure things were going to be out there and proliferate for the better for the consumer is to make sure you had a very -- an internet that was not going to be under title 2. by putting it there, you are putting it under the restrictions from, you know, the 34 act, which is then of course going back to the days of mabell and all those when you're looking at the monopoly side, and that's not what the internet is. it's an information service and not a telecommunication service. so, it really comes down to, again, we want to make sure it remains open, that folkvise the
-- that folks have the ability to get on there, to innovate. and again that's what's growing the internet. it's not the government. it's been on the private side. and we want to make sure that continues. and i'm not sure it's been circulated yet, but if it has, i'd like to ask unanimous consent it is. this is congressional research service dated april 2. it's really dealing with questions on the fore bearance of -- we have disagreement on where we are on this right now, but for reasons to discuss in more detail below the memorandum concludes that a review in court would likely to include an -- would likely include an interpretation that hr-1644 does not aggregate the authority including those made in the 2015 order.
again, we want to make sure we go back to where we saw commissions, republican and democrat, saying that this is an information service that's being provided out there. >> now, all i have is just these four pages of the rule committee print. where is that list of the 700 some odds provisions that we're -- that one expected to be applied but now through the committee's benevolence are not going to be applied? >> thank you. and what we've asked is that we can get those 700. those 700 have not been given to us. and one of my amendments is asking after the act that the rules are provided to us. and so, we don't have those. >> there'd be no reason not to provide those. >> let me say two things. the crs report you just put into the record does not apply to the bill that's before you. that applied to a previous
version of the bill, and the bill has since been amended to address some of the concerns on on forebearance. -- concerns on forebearance. report on this bill before you right now. so what's in the record does not apply to the bill before you. secondly, i find it rather interesting. this is my 25th year in congress. i never knew that we legislated based on what bills don't do, but rather on what they do do. we have been talking all along about what this bill does and how it affects isps and how it affects consumers, and those protections. the fact that over 700 regulations that were formerly part of title 2 are no longer in this bill. they have been foreborn. and this has been referenced, by the way, not only in the 2015 order, but amongst fcc staff and amongst mr. lauder in a statement he made back in
february where he said there's over 700 regulations forbear. apparently, the fcc never compiled the list because i don't think anyone worried too much about what didn't comply -- didn't apply anymore, what they didn't have to worry about anymore. seems kind of a silly thing, but i have no problem if someday the fcc wants to sit down and compile the 700 regulations that no longer have anything to do with this legislation or title 2. let them have at it. i don't care about that. but just to be clear, it's really a nonissue in terms of the effect of this bill. >> i think from my constituent'' perspective, the internet is the goose laying the golden egg. i don't know how it is back home for you, but i'm from the federal government.
i'm here to help in an area of high innovation and emerging technologies, doesn't fly so well back home. so, those regulations are not going to apply from the 1930's ma bell days meaningful to those folks back home. what i have heard is that a lot of folks worried about the search engines you mentioned earlier, we've seen the stories about conservative content getting pushed down, about folks getting silenced because people didn't like the content of their free speech. i think in the monopolistic environment, some of those services are rolling into these days, there may be rules for regulation. what does this bill due to protect folks farm being silenced as we have read stories? what does it do to deal with those service providers on the search engine side for the
twitters, the facebooks of the world? >> the edge providers. this bill is narrowly focused on isps. -- on isp's. they control the networks and they have the ability to shape and control traffic. the fcc has no authority over edge providers or expertise in this matter. they're regulated over the ftc. so, i'm sympathetic to some of the things that have been said about edge providers and the need to maybe look into that. but that's another issue for noerlt another day. -- another issue for another day. it doesn't belong in this bill, but i am looking forward and happy to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle in looking at edge providers at a future date. it's just not something that belongs in this bill. if i could -- if i may. when you're looking at your edge providers out there, and that's what we're hearing the concern from. it's from, you know, who's doing
the blocking, who's doing the throttling, it's not coming from the isp's, which this bill has the control over. it's on the edge providers which is again, your google, your twitter and your facebook. and so that's why we think it's very, very important you do look in this because you got to see where it's happening. i know dr. burgess has an amendment i believe, with a very holistic approach on it. >> we've been talking ability this issue what seems like my entire eight years in congress in one fashion or another. i believe the energies committee has as many talented folks kbaer -- as we have anywhere in congress to sort this out. i recognize thought the chairman is saying when he expects folk -- what the chairman is saying when he expects folk tuesday -- folks to come to him.
because that's what folks do when folks have gravitated to power. they did it that way, so we're going to do it that way. my constituency believes we could all probably do it a little bit better and i hope they're right. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thanks, mr. chair. and to the chairman, i would just say, in the suburbs of denver, i've gotp complaints about throttling and blocking and concerns about different things happening to folks as they enjoy the internet in one form or another. so, i appreciate this bill coming forward. it certainly is something that comes up, townhalls and phone calls, and all that stuff. but i do have a question. themr. cole raised administration policy we just received. and there is a paragraph, and he quoted it. consumers have benefited from a 35% increase in average fixed broadband downloads feeds. i mean, how do you respond to
this statement from the white house? >> let me say this. there's no relationship between -- neutrality rules and this and the things that they talk about. there's conflicting reports, and this is another area where we disagree. when the 2015 internet order was put through, investment actually increased in these services. and when chairman pie repealed the 2015 order, investment actually decreased. now, i think the real tale is what do the isp's say not when they come to congress. but what do they say when they go to wall street and talk with their investors and during the 2015 open internet order is that order did nothing to stifle their investments in the
internet, and they were going full steam ahead. you know, what companies want is certainty. when they know what the rules are, then they just have to play by the rules. that's what they look at. uncertainty is what causes companies to hold back. so, this idea that somehow the 2015 order stifled investment, it's not true. and certainly, the companies, if you read their statements when they sit in front of their investors in wall street said as much in writing. >> thank you. just a comment, and mr. cole and you both used words, this was rushed, this was jammed through. i've got to tell you, every single bill that has come to this committee -- and i'm going to keep repeating it as long as you guys keep repeating the same thing about how everything has been so rushed. but every single bill has been rushed, including at least one appropriations bill that was passed last september that was
brought forward, and everybody said it's too rushed, we haven't had enough time to debate this thing. so, i don't know whether 18 hours is a good number. i don't know whether you were given a fair chance to speak on behalf of your particular amendments. but, this is clearly a theme that we hear with every single bill. and i'll let you respond to that if you like, but i'm just telling you, you might as well get a standards piece of paper -- a standard piece of paper saying this was rushed through, we didn't have a chance, this isn't fair. >> thank you very much for the question. again, this is very important to the american people, and it's been discussed for quite a while. and we want to make sure it's done right. again, we truly believe if you're going to be looking at this, you know, in a whole manner, you need to look at everybody who's involved in this out there. and we don't have all the
players at the table as we mentioned. and so, to do this bill right, that's why i think you need to do that. so the question becomes, what are you going to do to it? and we want to have legislation that the american people want. i think we can work on that and get it done. >> well, i would assume this gets out of the house, goes to the senate if they choose to take it up and send to us what they cept us last year, that would be very interesting. at some point, we want to move these things. and obviously, i don't want you to feel like, you know, mr. doyle has stopped you, has muz speaking, you from and i don't think that's happened in any case. but i'm just speaking as one member of this committee, we can tell you we've heard probably a dozen times now how rushed everything is.
with that, i yield back to the chair. >> we did want hear that when the tax bill was here and didn't go through ways and means, but that's another topic. mr. burgess? >> thank you. and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. we did have a lengthy and lively markup in full committee last week. much of it still fresh in my mind. i always marvel at the sophistication of the constituents mr. woodall is blessed to represent. for those constituents in the country who are not as sophisticated, perhaps you could give us just a few words on this issue of forbearance. and for many people, this is a new term. so could you perhaps tell us what you think forbearance means and why it is important? >> again, what we're looking at is the fcc not taking action. there'd be "x" number of
regulation out there say we're not going to forbear, we're not going to go forward on. what we're looking at is that the fcc could later not for bearbear on those and go forward. it's saying that you cannot go forward on something. they are going to forbear on an action. >> so, it was your opinion that this crs report, and i do have a copy of it, is no longer part of the discussion because of changes that were made in 1644? >> that's correct. we added new forbearance language at full committee. and the keyword, i think, is the word permanent. the amendment says that -- >> is permanent used before or after the term "forbearance?"
>> permanent forbearance -- i don't remember the date when it was done. permanent means permanent, which means no future fcc can go back and unforbear what we have put in as permanent. -- put in the statute as permanent. onspecifically in the report page 7, second paragraph, in contrast to prior statutes, hr-1644 does not explicitly prohibit federal communications commission from reasoneding the -- resending the 2015 order or revising any of the determinations it made in that order. rather, it simply restores the order as it was in effect january 19, 2017. then they go onto say given congress knows how to explicitly prohibit agencies prom rules, that's from revising rules, the r-1644 suggests it
does not in fact prohibit the fcc from revising determinations. so you think you fixed that even though the congressional research service says given that congress knows how to explicitly prohibit -- we know this because we do appropriations bills sometimes, and we have limitation amendments in appropriations bills. we all know what that looks like. we've all done it for our favorite things whether it be light bulbs or cattle feed. we all know how to prohibit things in appropriations bills. so, you're saying that would not be possible going forward with the language you have provided in 1644? >> that's correct. we feel the language we provided in the amendment -- and i'll just read it to you. with respect to the declaratory ruling and order described in subsection b to permanently reinstate the rules and legal
interpretations set forth in such declaratory ruling and order. i believe the key word here is permanently. i think that is a very clear term, and it clearly states the antenna this built, and the intent in congress, and that is why we think that it has addressed the concerns expressed by you and others on the committee, as well as the crs report. >> but notwithstanding any other portion of this bill, no funds shall be expended for, fill in the blank, how will we know those amendments are likely to be offered during the appropriations process, and he -- and you think that language in the underlying bill would prohibit the limitation amendment in an appropriations bill, i would not be as confident about that. >> well, we feel confident about the language, and new attorneys can disagree, all you have to do is give an attorney fee, and they will disagree with anything you put into law, but we think the language is pretty tight. >> so, again, we are going to
have to agree to disagree on that. you referenced chairman ranking member walden's amendment, on the internet ecosystem, and that was an amendment, that i do not recall whether it was rejected, or if he withdrew it because of the point of order that was issued at the time, that the -- at the time that the amendment was offered, and the point of order was going to be on the amendment. >> i believe he withdrew the amendment. he withdrew the amendment. >> i do not remember if it was on that point order, or some other point of order, i pointed out that the bill will come to the all powerful house committee on rules, where we have the ability to waive all orders, as a matter of routine out here, so
it is that -- if that amendment were offered, would you be supportive of that amendment, even if it required a weighting of a point of order? >> again, if you're going to have a piece of legislation, -- if you're going to have a piece of legislation that the american people want, and what it is going to cover, then you need to take in all the parties out there, you cannot just look at one part, and not the whole, because again, it is where the people have seen, the twitter, facebook, and the google, or those other issues arise from. -- where those other issues arise from. wondered about that, because we have search for something on google, on a search engine, i don't want to upset them, we have searched for something on a search engine, i then we got all kinds of ads on the side of our dread report. the providers are making a value-based decision, on the content that they think i would
like to see in the ads, that is not, that is not the internet service provider who is making that determination, that is the provider, is that not correct? >> correct. >> and it would be reasonable to do a study to look at the effect that that is having on internet usage and consumption. >> i would say so. >> mr. doyle, i likely will offer that amendment. i don't know if the chairman will make it in order or not, but it may be something we get to see on the floor. >> i would just say that the gentleman, i think these are things we need to talk about. to look into these things, i do not think it's a bad idea. and like i said, you know, the edge providers are a different animal. they are not regulated by fcc, that is not their area of expertise, and they do not have the authority to regulate them.
i would note that a lot of what we hear from republicans, is that they would like to send the authority for regulation so- called cop on the beat for isp, i would submit to you, not only can they not do that, they do not have the manpower or the expertise, but let's look at the job they are doing right now, policing the edge providers. i would say that none of us are very happy with what we are seeing from some of these edge providers, and i would say to the gentleman, but you know, it is not something that belongs in this bill, but i think it is certainly something that we should be talking about in the future and working together on. >> you know, my predecessor in office, i remember him giving a talk in dallas, in the late 1990's, and the economy was really strong, much as it is now, and the reason for that
economy, or that economic boom that was being seen at the time, that was that to be the e-commerce affect. and i remember in his discussions, he says, this has happened, people in washington do not understand why it has happened, but it is so typical, when washington does not understand why something is happening, the next effort will be to tax it and regulate it, and when you do, it is over. so, those words have stuck with me all these many years, and although i am now the representative for that part of north texas, i think those are words of wisdom spoken in the late 1990's, and it probably applies today. you asked the question, and i heard the question, i am not sure if i understood the answer, but it was the issue around the service provider to prioritize emergency transmissions, and is that something you feel is sufficiently protected in the
bill that we have before us today? >> again, thank you for the question. we want to make sure that when these 911 calls go out, that there is a priority on those. i know through the years, that we have had different discussions of not dealing with net neutrality and committee, but making sure that when we have an emergency out there, as we're looking at this, things that have been talked about in years, and where we are going with that, but we want to make sure that there is a priority given, that you can have an emergency, these calls, and things going over the internet, getting that priority. so, we want to make sure, that that is done, i cannot really say in the legislation -- >> okay, so you cannot say -- >> no. it is protected in the legislation, i will read the section, section 819 a, of the
rules restored, say nothing in -- says nothing in this part supersedes any obligation, or authorization of a provider of broadband service, access service, may have to address the needs of emergency communications, or law enforcement, public safety, or national security authorities consistent with, or as permitted by applicable law or limits to the provider's ability to do so. so, that is protected in the bill. >> very well. we will leave it at that. thank you. >> thank you very much, and we just have another panel as well, so i do not want to discourage you from asking questions, but i kind of do. no, i don't. [laughter] >> thank you for that warm introduction. i just want to salute you on your great leadership of this legislation. i am thrilled that you have been able to vindicate the three basic principles for free and fair internet of no blocking, no throttling, and no subsidization to distort what goes on the internet.
or, i think prioritization, no subsidized privatization. and, you have empowered fcc to stop other kinds of unfair, unjust, and discriminatory practices that are taking place, and that is why it is fantastically popular legislation. in fact, it's the first bill that i have ever been lobbied on by all of my children, and nieces, and nephews, they said you got to support the save the internet at. i just have one question for you, which is, in the time since the fcc took away the 2015 open internet order, what kinds of troubling things have taken place that would suggest we really do need this urgently? >> yeah, and i think you're hitting the key difference between republicans and democrats on this issue.
we all agree to no blocking, no throttling, or no paid prioritization, there's no discriminate out that. -- there's no disagreement about that. the question is, what type of unjust, or unreasonable, or discriminatory behavior may happen in the future that we have not even envisioned yet. so, it is sort of like if we just do those three things, it is like locking the front door of your house, but leaving the back door open. and that is why we need to get the fcc a cop on the beat to look at future behavior that may be unjust, or unreasonable, or discriminatory, have the power to address those consumer complaints. we already are looking at things like zero ratings, and interconnection points as possibilities where there could be discriminatory behavior, not in all cases, and in that case, the fcc can look at these things on a case-by-case basis. but, if we just agreed to do
these three things and nothing else, then we have not have not done our job. we just basically say okay, the stuff we all know about and agreed to, we are going to stop that stuff, but anything that happens from this point on, there is no cop on the beat. i think that is the big difference. >> finally, you also, promote the powered sec to push broadband, in rural communities, and poor communities, and so, delighted to see that. mr. chairman, i yield back. rep. mcgovern: thank you very much. to ensure the record, statement by congresswoman maxine waters -- she is an amendment, on the save the internet act, so without objection, let's go. rep. waters thank you mr. : chairman, thank you both of you for being here today. is it your understanding, that hr 1644 would allow the sec to regulate content on the internet? >> yes.
and mr. latta, is it your understanding, if enacted, could eight 1644 race subscription fees and other costs for american families? >> yes. rep. lesko: and if enacted, could hr 1644 expose the data use of american families to taxes and fees that are currently prohibited? >> yes. rep. lesko: and lastly, mr. latta, are you concerned that the government regulations could actually slow down innovations, and thus slow down the internet, the opposite of the statist goal of this bill? >> yes, it could. lesko thank you. :>> i would just say none of that is possible under this thank you, thank you mr. chairman, and i would like to think representative doyle, as the dean about pennsylvania's allegation, for introducing the save the internet act of 2019, and for his present and bring this issue forward, after it was bottled up in committee during the last congress, and we were not able to get a hearing or
discharge on that. i have heard loud and clear from my constituents they are firm for this net neutrality bill and i look forward to seeing it passed into law in addition to preventing the throttling and excessive fees, etc.. it ensures a level playing field for the entrepreneurs, the students and the small businesses that rely on the internet and guarantees easier access across content providers for everyone. as you noted, mr. doyle, it also benefits consumers and corporations, by providing certainty and predictability, which has been lacking when we have had regimes of rules, so i look forward to seeing this past. drum more equitable internet future and an internet that respects autonomy and access for all of our consumers. rep. mcgovern: thank you very much.
all, thank you for the roll up and thank you to mr. latta for being here and the hard work. i will admit to being not particularly tech savvy, so if i ask, and these sound ignorant, pardon me, but i'm relatively ignorant on this. i will agree to it at the beginning. andway i sort of see this tell me where i am wrong in this, 25 years ago the internet, , although it was generally, in terms of consumers in its infancy -- people use, i remember, you said dial-up, you would hear the modem click, and eventually, after about half screen would be painted, and hour, a things would come across, and you might have some uses, but generally it was more a curiosity maybe little more than 25, 20, 30 years ago. now, it seems to me, first of all obviously there are hundreds of millions of users in the
united states alone, that people aside from streaming videos use it for medical electronic, electronic records, banking, news, information, it is hard to imagine much that does not happen in one form or another with the internet, so in some respects, it really has become a public utility. and i know people do not like to use the word, but if you think about it and how much traffic goes over it and the essential uses, it really in my mind becomes more like a public utility. but i'm curious but a couple things. first of all, it has been suggested that it stifles competition. but in my mind, the competition that has gone on among isp's has not -- this rule has only been relaxed within the last couple of years. there was plenty of competition prior to the imposition of this, and the ending of net neutrality, is that not true? that isp's, even under the open rule, prior to the net neutrality rules been relaxed,
there was substantial competition among the isp's? -- let, i mean you have me say this. a great swath of america only has a choice of one isp. that is why it is so important that we have net neutrality rules. because that isp, and a lot of these isp's now own content, comcast owns nbc universal, at&t owns time warner. so what we don't want to see happen is an isp which may have an out -- have a monopoly, maybe the only isp someone has access to, blocking a competitor's content. and so, that is the whole genesis behind the idea of these net neutrality rules, to make sure that that middleman, that isp, gives fair axis, equal access to consumers and content providers as they come through. rep. morelle: i appreciate that. my point i guess was the there
is a suggestion that this will block innovation, that somehow, having a net neutrality rules in place will stop innovation. my argument would be, or i guess my question was if innovations continue, if investments continue, by isp's, even before the rules were relaxed within the last couple of years? rep. doyle: right after the 2015 internet order was done, an investment actually increased, when these isp's went to wall street and were asked by their investors, what is the impact of this 2015 order on your company's ability to invest money and to expand their services and grow? all of them said this would have absolutely no impact on their decisions to invest money, and they did. so -- rep. morelle: that was the point i was trying to get your response to. the other thing, just so i am clear when you're a content
, provider, so think of streaming videos. you might have it. in my house we have hulu, we have netflix, we have amazon prime, those are content providers. me as the consumer, i as the consumer, can make a judgment, based on a whole host of you know, growing exponentially content providers to pay a fee for them to stream, and for me to be able to get that information, right? rep. doyle: right. rep. morelle: when it comes to stifling the content, that is a decision that is made by the consumer. but it occurs to me that if you have, if you do not have the rules that you are talking about in place, that if i were, you know, joe's videos, and i decided i'm going to start a subscription service, that the isp -- it was paid by one of the large competitors, could essentially say, joe's video, you do not have the resources. we know you want to charge a
service, that is very nice. but without the consumer's knowledge, unless i have the ability to compete by giving a fee to the isp, i would have no recourse here. and the consumer would be blocked in terms of the number of offerings that could potentially be available to them, is that not right? rep. doyle: yeah, i mean both the consumer and the content provider disadvantaged in that scenario. rep. morelle: right, so fledgling services that are content providers would be pretty dramatically, or consumers basically would not know because they would not get to the point where they have certain adequacy to reach that many consumers. and that to me is the end of the day, and i'm not sure what some of the others have said about how this abridges first amendment rights. it seems to me, this encourages expression on the internet and allows more content providers to get the consumers, if the consumers want to be, and to your point earlier, as it relates to those areas that only have a single isp, there is no other to go to. so if they decide that they are
going to charge, somewhere there's going to be fees put on various content providers, it is not as though you can subtly pick up the phone and say, i would like to change my isp, and have someone else in the area become, because there is no one else in the area. so i'll just conclude this is determined by thinking mr. doyle. rep. mcgovern: with all those you have in your house, you're either more savvy than you said or you have a lot of kids. >> [laughter] rep. shalala: thank you very much. all of them thought we should go back to the -- i got an ear full from my constituents about net neutrality, and some were pretty sophisticated. all of them thought that we should fall back to the protections that were put in place a few years ago, and they were, they would not be impressed by the fact that they got faster broadband. i certainly have not been impressed, because it cost me more money when i got faster broadband. they do care about access though for rural areas and for
kids. and they care a lot about the elements of the earlier sec rule, that really did focus on rural areas and on kids. so the polls show that americans are in favor of net neutrality, and the kind of net neutrality they expect, some kind of enforcement provision, some kind of a cop that keeps an eye on it for them. so, i strongly support your efforts, and i yield back. rep. mcgovern: thank you very much. >> i just want to thank mr. doyle for bringing this important consumer protection statute to us, and i really do think, even the isp's, this is in their best interest in the long run. and it has been said before, but i really think, that we are doing the public a good service, and it has been reflected in the service that we have heard about.
thank you, mr. doyle. rep. doyle: thank you very much, mr. doyle, mr. latta, thank you your being here. we appreciate your testimony, and you're free to the chairman, the ranking member, and thank you very much for having us. please with our stenographer. seeing none, that closes the hr 1644.ortion on we will now consider hr 2021, investing the people act of we are happy to welcome the honorable john from kentucky, 2019. and the honorable steve womack from arkansas. you may begin. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member cole, members of the committee. last week, the house budget committee passed the investing for the people act, a two-year budget that will move our country forward and ensure congress can meet its obligations to the american people. as chairman of the committee, i am honored to present this bill
to the rules committee today in advance of floor action. this bill raises sequestration to stop extreme cuts from ever being implemented. corrects years of austerity spending for crucial domestic investments, helps prevent another government shutdown, and provides responsible governing in the face of recklessness. we find ourselves in this position as we all know because the budget control act of 2011 used the threat of deep cuts to both defense and nondefense spending levels in order to force an agreement on a wider deficit reduction package. the sequestration caps were designed to be so drastic and so painful that the very threat of their implementation would be enough to spur action. despite that threat, a deficit reduction package was never enacted. as a result, congress was forced to come together to raise the caps in 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2018. it is time for us to act again. those recent bipartisan deals were successful, because they were based on the principle of
parity. that is, a dollar for dollar increase in the caps for both defense and nondefense. the parity principle started with the bca itself which divided the sequestration cuts equally before between defense and offense. hr 2021 adheres to this bipartisan principal, allowing us to move forward quickly and responsibly and ensure our people have realistic top lines in place. even with the four bicameral deals i mentioned, nondefense discretionary spending has never fully recovered from the years of insufficient funding. mdd currently sits near historic lows at 3.2% of gdp. and if congress does not establish new budget budget caps this year, it will be cut even further. the investing for the people act, which i am honored to have house appropriations chairwoman nita lowy on as an original cosponsor, correct this imbalance. under our bill, the year-to-
year increase for nondefense investments will be twice as large as that for defense spending, which is adjusted only for inflation. the resulting budget levels with -- would mean nondefense spending is fully backed to the level, in inflation and just adjusted terms, before the bca started wreaking havoc on our ability to invest in our communities and our families. this bill soundly rejects the president, and congressional republicans' proposals to blindly boost military spending to $750 billion a year, a level above what the pentagon said was sufficient to meet the national defense strategy. it also rebuffs the president's egregious misuse of the overseas contingency operations fund which will be capped at no , higher than the 2019 levels previously agreed to. additionally our bill adheres to the parity principle reflected in the amendment proposed by senator murray in the senate,
budget committees, budget resolution markup last month. and aligns with the bipartisan bicameral taft deals of the past. passing this two-year budget is both smart and responsible. it provides the appropriations committee clear, top line budget levels, so they can graft the must pass legislation needed to fund our government. this will help us avoid a continuing resolution, or at worst, another government shutdown. by passing the investing for the people act, we in the house will be doing our jobs, following regular order, and ensuring we can meet the needs and priorities of our families and communities. as the committee considers this legislation, i ask for a structured rule that will allow for meaningful debate. i look forward to passing this bill in the house, and i look forward to taking your questions today. rep. mcgovern: thank you very much, mr. womack, welcome. mr. womack thank you very much. : i think the chairman, ranking member cole, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to express my
concerns, about hr 2021. i had hoped my friend from kentucky, and i say that with a high degree of seriousness, he is my friend. i wish we would have been here to talk about a budget, but we are here on a different matter. the bill we are here to discuss today by definition is not a budget, despite what some of my colleagues across the aisle have been suggesting. it does not provide a guide for how to handle spending and revenue decisions. it does not address our nation's rising deficits or the $22 trillion already in debt. it does not offer solutions to prevent medicare and social security from going insolvent. it does not offer a vision for how to put our nation on a fiscally sustainable path and prevent our children and grandchildren from being saddled with record high levels of debt. the only document that can do that is a budget. as you all know, the power of the purse is one of our primary responsibilities under article 1. it is also why the budget committee was created. without a budget, congress is flying blind and very likely to exacerbate, not fix, our fiscal
problems. however my colleagues across the aisle have taken a shortcut that focuses on a small portion of the overall budget. i agree with the need to gradually and responsibly raise and extend discretionary spending caps, which have proven to be effective in restraining federal spending and have helped save hundreds of billions of dollars. unfortunately, this bill is not the answer. it is missing the key ingredients that the last three discretionary spending cap increases have had, including bipartisan input, white house participation, and a plan to offset spending. further it substantially spending and underlines the -- it substantially increases federal spending and underlines -- it unwinds the progress republicans in congress and this administration have made to restore military readiness and protect our national security. we tried in the budget committee to address these issues, but my friends on the other side refused to accept even a single one of our proposed amendments. the rules committee has an opportunity to make amendments in order that could improve the situation.
without changes the bill has no chance of being signed into law, wasting an opportunity to responsibly fund our priorities. toward that end, i would like to ask the committee to make an order, an amendment that my good friend from ohio, congressman bill johnson, offered during our markup. the amendment would make this legislation fiscally responsible, by requiring mandatory spending reforms, equal to or greater than the amount of caps increases in the bill. this proposed change is an important part of governing. we have heard from the congressional budget office and our committee on numerous occasions that the growth of mandatory spending programs is outpacing all of our other spending and driving us further into debt. interest on the debt will be the size of the defense budget, by 2026. if you care about discretionary spending, as i am sure all of you on this committee do, you should be worried about mandatory spending.
i also understand the committee may consider an amendment to add yet another cap adjustment. there are two in the bill now, which have the effect of disregarding the cap limits the authors are setting. the exercise just makes the point that we should do a budget. we have real opportunities to make these programs better for the people we represent and fix our debt. with the republican-led white house and senate, shouldn't we be working together to do just that in the house? so mr. chairman, i strongly oppose this bill in its current form. i hope the committee can see the value of allowing the house to work its will in debate amendments. with that, i thank you for the opportunity to be here today, for the hard work of this committee, and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. rep. mcgovern: i thank you both for your testimony. i would just say, mr. womack, i appreciate your testimony, i appreciate the patience that you had, sitting to the previous panel. welcome to the rules committee. rep. womack: i am not sure i learned as much as i should have.
rep. mcgovern: i just want to say for the record, it is just a little bit hard for me, having the last congress not be so far in the past to hear kind of lecture on fiscal discipline. as i remember correctly, my republican friends passed a tax cut that put a big hole in our deficit. and by the way, brought it to the rules committee where it did not get a hearing in the ways of means committee. it just came here. my republican friends, who were in charge of the house and the senate and the white house the last two years, so there was opportunities to, you know, in terms of mandatory spending, to have -- i mean, you had opportunity when you control everything to look at that. i think, what we are trying to do here, and i should also say, that i do know for effect, that our majority leader has tried to reach out to the white house, to have these discussions, and -- discussions on increasing discretionary spending, and i think, what he has been getting, is the kind of, get back to me
later, get back to me later. i think we need to get our work done in a responsible fashion, but to get it done in a timeline that does not mean that we are up against the clock, where we risk another government shutdown. we want to get our work done, and so i think that is one of the reasons why we are coming forward with this proposal here today. but i appreciate, you know, mr. yarmouth being here, thank , you for your work, and i have no questions. mr. hastings. you, i'mings: thank here happy yield to the gentleman, our ranking number. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. yarmouth is not only chairman of the powerful budget committee. he is chairman of the far more popular bipartisan urban caucus. it was going -- always good to have him in the area. my good friend, mr. womack of course, is a fellow appropriate, and a dear personal friend, so these are two really quality members. but i want to go back to the point that mr. womack made, and i want to put the question
directly to the chairman. is this a budget? rep. mcgovern: in the sense of that it is -- it does not include revenue, no, it is not a budget. is when you combine what the democratic caucus will be doing, which is first to lines bending numbers, then the appropriators will do their work, demonstrate our priorities for the american people and ways and means will do whatever it is going to do on revenues, then we will see in the aggregate a vision of the budget that we would put forward. i think what is important -- we would've loved to have done a budget resolution. the senate made it very clear to us that they were not going to proceed with the budget resolution, so we could've gone through the exercise and wasted a lot of time and energy to accomplish nothing on our side. as the chairman, as chairman mcgovern expressed, we are
trying to move through the process in regular order, have the appropriators do their work, you are part of that process, and then bring the appropriations bills to the inor in a timely fashion june and therefore make a schedule, which will again, clearly demonstrate democratic priorities, and in a much more timely fashion than has been done in the past. >> isn't it the responsibility, that the budget committee, to produce a budget, is that in the rules of the house? regardless of what the senate does, is that in our rules, we're supposed to produce a budget? rep. yarmouth: we could have done that. we could have gone through the process and wasted time. rep. cole: mr. chairman i do not , suspect you could have done that. i think that was one of the problems, that there was not a consensus on the democratic side that could produce a budget. mr. womack, you were the chairman of this committee last year. did your committee produce a budget? rep. womack: we did.
rep. cole: isn't that required by the rules? rep. womack: that is precisely why we do a budget, because it is required by the rules, and it is a necessary legislative process, in order for us to get to, what i believe, and what many will share is one of the great single issues facing this country, and that is our fiscal glide path right now. ip. cole: as an appropriator, intimately familiar with the am discretionary budget. how much of federal spending is in the discretionary budget? i will put that to you both. >> approximately $1.3 trillion, or $1.4 trillion total spending. rep. cole: about 30%. so, in other words, we are leaving 70% of the federal budget unaddressed by the budget committee. no recommendations, no proposals , no insights, as to where we should proceed as a country and that -- >> that is an accurate statement. rep. cole: over 10 years, but this is a real -- look, it was our speaker who said show me
your budget, and i will show you your values. show me your budget, and then, that ought to come out with at least the budget committee. i mean, i will tell you, i was disappointed, on our side, when we did not pass the budget to the full house, and, but, this is passing a budget to the budget -- >> if i may respond, there is nothing that prevents us from producing a budget, subsequent to this process. what we were trying to do is set timelines. we were having discussions about that now. but we felt it was imperative upon us to get the topline numbers done, raise the caps, so that the appropriators could work in a reasonable way and move through appropriations process. rep. cole: as an appropriator, i appreciate that, and i mean that quite sincerely. i will tell you though, since there is not an agreement with the united states senate, and there's not an agreement with the administration, i mean, how we proceed is going to be well and good inside the chamber, but there is no indication at all, that what we do is going to become law. isn't that the case?
rep. yarmouth: that is my opinion. rep. cole: so i mean this is a real abdication of majority. you were given majority to govern. governing means creating a budget. that shows your values. you're not doing that here. and so, count me as exceptionally disappointed in that. if we -- if we are not going to get a budget resolution -- well let me ask a different question , -- mr. chairman, you were kind enough, honestly, to have a members day, and you were kind enough to have a lot of us come in and testify. i actually put forward, what has been in the past, a bipartisan proposal on social security administration -- excuse me, social security process reform, that i should go back to something like the old greenspan commission which worked very well. congressman -- former congressman delaney and i used to carry in our routine.
i was sad it was not in our bill explicitly, understand, is there going to be any hearings on any kind of moving forward, so we can get the real drivers of the debt out of here? this will actually be the first budget, excuse me, the first cap proposal, because it is not a budget, but the first caps proposal, that increases discretionary spending, over where it was in fiscal year 2010. so, you know, i understand what you're trying to do there, and i understand frankly to some degree the need for it, though i would argue you are going too far domestically. but you know, that is going to make the budget deficit a lot worse than a tax cut over a decade with the proposals you are laying out here. becaus, there is no offset -- because there is no offset anywhere, and there's nothing that suggests it will stimulate economic growth, at least there is an argument on the tax cut. rep. yarmouth: to answer your last point first, this is a two-year budget, this is not a 10 year budget. this is a two-year spending level. so, you cannot say that this is going to proceed over 10 years, --
rep. cole: you think will do cut the discretionary but it two years from now? rep. yarmouth: i do not know what we will do, but this is only for two years. and i will say that the ranking member and i spent the entire last year as part of the joint select committee on budget and appropriations reform, trying to figure out a way we could make this process more sensible, more efficient, and more effective. and at the end of the process, the ranking member and i were two of the only members who voted for some proposals to actually proceed. so we have a common interest, that has -- that exists still, in working on budget reform, and we plan to proceed with consideration of ideas, that, hopefully will make the process better. rep. cole: and i appreciate that, and i followed your work last year and was very pleased to see both of you working. it actually gave me some hope going forward this year that we could find some ground there.
but you know i would submit to , you, the problem here, in terms of the budget being unbalanced isn't a discretionary budget. it has not been a decade. we have lived within the numbers we have been given. those numbers actually have been lower, until this year, until this proposal. that, you look at the defense, and the funding, and i think two sides that actually agree with your point on it, there are -- they are basically two sides the same coin. we should not be using no go as a gimmick, which i think the president's budget, they do, to protect defense spending. but -- those two numbers combined were lower in fiscal year 2019, then they were in -- 2019, than they were in fiscal year 2010. and nondefense discretionary was lower in 2019, the current year that we are in, than in 2010. so, our problem is not the appropriations side of this. our problem is the unwillingness of both parties, both sides of the rotunda, and both of the last two administrations to sit down and deal seriously with entitlement spending.
and that does not necessarily entitlement -- necessarily mean entitlement cuts. it may mean more revenue. that is exactly what they did in 1983 under the proposal -- they made some modest reforms, they increased the age of social security. they, you know, did some things that were on that side of the issue, but they also increased the amount of money, income that was subject to taxation. that is the kind of deal we are going to have, and i am sad we are not working on something like that here. >> mr. chairman, may i make a comment in reference to what he just said? if he would be willing to yield the time, and the analysis that came out earlier this year, as i said in my opening, the issue that we face is on the mandatory side. it is not the discretionary, even though the caps issue is what we are debating here today. but as a percentage of gdp, mandatory spending is going higher, and as a percentage of gdp, discretionary spending is
tracking lower. and so we have a real problem there, and i think cbo has been good to point that out, and why we are not doing a budget that can actually get to that side of the ledger is what the argument is about today. rep. cole: well, i agree with that. let me ask you one more on related issue but i know it is something, but i hope you feel strongly about, but i know my friend does. one of the other proposals i made, and i'll probably try and present it tonight, was to forward fund the indian health service, which requires you know some sort of approval from the budget committee. is that an issue -- i know it is not addressed in this bill. i wish it were, because, we have had that community subject, where we have had government shutdowns, subject of being disruptive to their healthcare, which is actually a treaty obligation. we do this with veterans now. it is the right thing to do,
we keep this obligation. is there any opposition to doing something like that, going forward? rep. womack: i am not sure. i have met with representatives of many of the native american tribes, to discuss the problem. i am very sympathetic to the issues that they raise. the concern we have is that there are many many programs that during the shutdown suffered dramatically. we have to consider the preced ent it said. i think our primary obligation ought to be as a congress, to the extent that we can impact the administration, is to avoid shutdowns, and to proceed through regular orders, so that these issues do not arise. rep. cole: could not agree with you more. on my own side i have participated in -- and have always voted to reopen the government as quickly as i possibly could. but in this case, i just want to make a point for the records, for having this discussion,
nobody else's healthcare is impacted by discretionary spending. every other group of americans do not have their medicaid or their medicare interrupted. for some reason, only american natives seem to be -- i've had this discussion, just as sternly with your predecessors, on the same issue, and the bill that i'm supporting is actually a democratic bill. my good colleague representative mcauliffe mccullough, who is on this issue. so i just ask you when you get back to it, do not let -- do not decide for some arcane budget reason, that somehow, indians have to be subjected to discretionary spending limits on their healthcare, when no other american is. just the wrong thing to do. rep. yarmouth: i am in great sympathy with you. rep. cole: does my friend care to make a comment? rep. womack: i will leave it there. i want to leave it with this. i really want to encourage you
both to write a budget, and get it out of your budget committee. it may or may not survive the house. we had that experience last year. i am disappointed in that, but i think it is important for the institution, you know, to not let the immediate you know, overwhelm the important. and what is important is long- term, setting us on some path, that starts you know, starts , moving us down. and i would look at some of these things that can be bipartisan. mr. delaney and my bill was very bipartisan. it did not take -- the outcome, i just said congress would end up voting on a solution. social security is the easiest place to start, because it is a math problem. medicare and medicaid, i would concede to anybody, are much tougher issues as to how we do it, but we certainly can make sure social security is fully funded so we don't hit a cliff out there at 2:30. i think you would find, i have had this very same discussion with the president of the united states, it is a political winner to save social security. when ronald reagan did it, and tip o'neill did it working
, together in 1983, ronald reagan 149 states the next year, and tip o'neill stayed speaker of the house. it is something, you know, why we politicize, it is something all americans want to see us come together, and i hope you will put together a budget that lays out those kinds of practical and bipartisan approaches. and again, i will tell you, i had trouble with my own site on this too, so i am not trying to be partisan of this, but that discussion has to happen. we miss an opportunity here when we do not present a real budget. we produce spending caps that are really, frankly being adjusted to sort of set aside different groups within our various constituencies. we do it with defense, you with non-defense, and that's what we are seeing here. but we are not seeing a real discussion about where the country ought to go fiscally in the next few years. i would also submit last point, , the time to do it is now. the best time to actually get entitlement reform is in divided government. that's how we got it in 1983. we had divided government, and
both sides, so please, take advantage of a rare opportunity, lay out a challenge, and let's see if people will respond to it. thank you, mr. chairman. rep. mcgovern: trying to get through this panel if we could. mrs. torres. rep. torres: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you both for being here. i want to follow you know, some of what has been said, and encourage you to continue working together on some common practices on how to get .mproved on budgeting processes having served in california, we had a $15 -- a $15 billion deficit and we had to cut a third of our deficit spending, that was a crisis, and i would not wish that on my worst enemy to have to deal with. so, ensuring that, you know, where we allow the administration to send our military into foreign lands, and
undeclaredo fight war, there's a cost associated with that. deal with it, not only what does it cost to send people there, but what is the cost to recover their lives once they come back? and i think that some of those very common-sense issues need to be addressed for the long term. i also agree that budgeting shows our values. you know, what we care about the most, you know, from the national perspective? and with that, in february, we received the president's budget, -- budget. the president's budget would keep us from meeting the basic needs of americans across the nation. it would mean draconian cuts to critical programs. over the next decade, this budget would cut social security by $25 billion! you know, i care a lot about our native american community and how they are
treated, but i also care a lot about how seniors are treated, and when seniors in my community hear that this is going to be a cut to a program that they depend on, it is, it is a cause for alarm. that is when the calls come in, and that is when people show that they are very, very concerned, and they are paying attention to what we are doing. this budget proposes cutting $845 billion from medicare, one 1 -- $1.5 trillion from medicaid over 10 years. it is also a direct assault on women's health. experts say that the title x program should be funded, to the tune of $400 million, to serve some of the most basic reproductive health needs of very low income women. the president's budget would only give $286.5 million to that program that is already underfunded.
i want to make sure that we work the numbers, and that we make ends meet, and that we try to live within our needs, but i also want to make sure that the first people that we throw off ship are seniors and women and children. these are vulnerable populations that we need to help them. so, you know, what my colleagues on the other side say when it comes to dealing with the president's budget, you know, you referred to it as fiscal responsibility. fiscal responsibility for whom? after you past a $1.5 trillion tax cut that will go grow our deficit, and rob the future of children, and rob the present of our seniors. hr 2021 will allow us to make the investments that we need, to address the needs, the basic needs of the american people. i look forward to supporting hr 2021.
the investing for the people as -- act of 2019. i wonder if you could discuss the impact the -- timely passage of this legislation, on the appropriations process. rep. yarmouth: well, thank you very much for the question, and i totally agree with your assessment of the president's budget. enormous cuts in healthcare, cuts to snap,n $209 billion in cuts to student aid, $4.5 billion in cuts to the national institute of health, incredible investment and both our future and human potential. but what we are trying to do here is once again pass what we believe are appropriate spending levels to do the job that the so when you talk, we talk about nondefense spending. the president's budget would've cut non-defense spending by more than 10%.
and the cuts as i have mentioned, but the cuts in 30% at epa, 20% in state department. some incredibly important investments, that you know, are not just in our families and the communities, but in our national security, because remember, non-defense discretionary spending includes homeland security. it includes the fbi, it includes the fda, it includes the faa, it includes transportation spending all investments that , are critically important to our economic and national security. so, we believe the spending levels that we are proposing in both defense and non-defense discretionary spending, are the levels at which the appropriators can make the kind of investments, in our human security, in our national security, in our economic security, that will put the country on a good path to providing the kind of society
that we aspire to. rep. torres: did you have anything to add? rep. womack: not for me to litigate in this hearing the president's budget necessarily. i am trying to make an article one case here tonight. i am not trying to either say what i like or do not like about the president's budget. i am simply here to say that what we have before you, and 2021 is not a budget. and for the budget committee to actually do its work, we have to actually do its work, we have to produce a budget resolution and give a full vetting to the issues that face our country. these are very deep and critical issues that we all know have to be addressed, but by not doing a budget resolution, by just simply raising the caps on discretionary spending on about a third of government, and kicking the can down the road on the others, is exactly why we are in the condition we are in, and why we will stay in this condition, and exacerbate the condition, without a budget resolution.
rep. torres: mr. chairman, i yield back. rep. mcgovern: thank you. >> i have the privilege of orelleg with mr. m on the budget committee, with these fine folks, another chairman can only do what the democratic caucus permits them to do. i will tell you that, it would be a terrible mistake, not to let these two gentlemen try to craft a budget together, not that the republicans were always the best role models for how to reach across the aisle, and pass bipartisan budget, but i saw the bipartisan, bicameral consensus on the joint committee, last year, and it will go down in history as a terrible missed opportunity if we do not empower you both to do that same thing. rep. yarmouth: you are a role model on this committee right now. >> [laughter] >> to your appropriations is a point, bill i have got, hr 1280. no more government shutdown act, which, you know, obviously, we
have all run into, in my career, i think we are at five shutdowns. and i want to avoid it. it just continues the prior year appropriations board, the next year, until you either get a budget to do the spending caps, or our appropriators come to terms with the white house. so, i hope to see you all in the budget committee, since this has been assigned to you and mr. cole. see you. >> thank you, and i want to show the consent to share the record of the testimony of maxine waters and what she has. mr. burgess. rep. burgess thank you mr. : chairman, and thinks to most of you for being here this evening. let me just ask you a question, mr. womack, about a part of the budget that is outside -- or the part of our spending that is outside of our appropriation process, the mandatory side of grown significantly over the
-- mandatory side of the ledger, and it has grown significantly over the time that i have been here. is there a way to realistically dial that back, so that we do reclaim some of our article one authority and actually budget for the money that is spent? rep. womack: well, it is moving away from us. the key word in your question is realistically. and whenever you are dealing with something from a realistic standpoint, you also have to introduce the political dynamics that go into that. the short answer to your question, dr. burgess, is absolutely. if we can find the will, to understand that if we continue down the path we are on, both of the major programs on the mandatory side of ledger get cut. i mean, we have all read the trustees' reports and the analyses -- rep. burgess: that was going to be the follow-on part of the question. rep. womack: and the social security trust fund, when most trust funds are exhausted,
is that not correct? rep. burgess: 2026 on medicare part a, and 2030, pick a number, 2032, 2033, in that timeframe, social security. these are very concerning, and i know my counterpart to chairman here, shares those concerns, and that is why we need to have a budget resolution that can in a , very serious way, explain the truth on the balance sheet to the american people. rep. womack: so when that day dawns, whether or not we have done anything to reclaim any portion of the mandatory spending, something will happen, and it will be a reduction in the outlays that are payed, for people who are receiving dollars from those programs, is that correct? rep. womack: it will either be very serious, very draconian cuts to those programs, which we can forecast now, by year, or it will take the congress of the united states to decide to limit the downside on those cuts, with
some other type of enhancement. but yes, that would happen. rep. burgess: and i will never forget a lecture i have heard from a senator from massachusetts, back in 1993 -- when he came and talked to the dallas business group on health, and talked about entitlement spending, and was concerned that the present trajectory that was available to him in 1993, that they would reach a point where a subsequent generation of americans, probably not yet born, would make the determination that it is not worth continuing the type of taxation levels they are enduring to continue those benefits for the people who are now seeing the rollback after the exhaustion of the trust funds. in other words, it is baked into in the cake that there is going
to be an intergenerational conflict, and the sad thing is, we know the timeline. and we may not know all the participants because they may not have been born yet, but we can forecast, just what senator saugus was warning us about, and in fact, it is in the future. rep. womack: dr. burgess, years ago, we could forecast it by time, almost exact time, just based on analysis. but back then, the day of reckoning was so far off, we knew that we had some time to fix it. but i think anybody on this panel would agree that 2026 is right around the corner, and 2032 or 2033 on the social security side is not far behind at. so, yes those, they are imminent. rep. burgess: let me ask you another question, a little harder. because the third component of that, what we normally consider the big three in the mandatory
spending -- rep. womack: the interest. rep. burgess: i was not considering that, but medicaid, is not backed up by trust funds, interest is not backed up by trust fund. so, medicaid, not backed up by trust fund, there is no normal forwcastable pause point in medicaid spending as there is for social security and medicare, is that correct? rep. womack: that is correct. rep. burgess: that will continue to be on the treasury, and, i again i do not see the thisitical will in congress, last congress, next congress to deal with that, the -- but deal with it we must at some point, is that not correct? rep. womack: that is correct. rep. burgess: so a different approach, a new paradigm -- this is one of the things that seems to be incumbent upon us, is it not? rep. womack: it is incumbent, and that is why i suggest, we need to have a very good suggest
-- adult conversation with our country about what we expect out of our nation, our ability to finance it, and we need to separate the needs from the wants, and we have some issues facing us right now that are becoming quicker in fruition. rep. burgess: my apologies on leaving the interest on the national debt out of that equation. rep. womack: neither of us leave interest on that occasion because it is growing and if we ever normalize these interest rates, we are in big trouble. rep. burgess: i yield back. >> the time of the vote is expiring but does anyone here have any questions that they need -- it is up to you. >> [laughter] >> i'll try to be quick. a couple times here i heard my friends on the other side of the aisle talks about -- talk about the tax cuts.
so mr. womack, i want to take a few minutes to focus on revenues. i understand that the 50-year average of revenue is 17.4% of gdp. even though it is the tax cut estimatesct, the cbo beenue for 2023 to 2025 to in line with the historical average. we have record high revenues so my question is many of our democratic friends blame the passage of the tax law for soaring deficit and debt. do you agree with that? rep. yarmouth: i do not. i think it's premature to make a declaration like that because we are only in year two of that tax cut, and i don't think there's any question that it has produced the kind of climate on which our job creators can really expand their businesses, create jobs and opportunities,
and we have millions of jobs left unfilled. i personally think it is working, but i don't think it is -- should be by itself in the discussion. i think regulatory reform and some of the issues that we've addressed outside of the budget framework are critical to revenues. rep. lesko: thank you, mr. chair , and mr. womack, i understand that there is a cutting of $44 billion below what the president wants on military spending, and there was some kind of disagreement between democrats in committee of how much to cut -- some of the more progressives wanted more to cut. and so, what did you do -- are you concerned about the cuts in military spending? rep. womack: i am the defense appropriator and i am privy to a lot of things, and i'm a 30 year veteran, so military spending is pretty important to me. i also recognize the threat around the globe, but i think we did settle at 733 --
$730 billion less than the president's request. $30 billion more than current spending levels. rep. mcgovern: thank you very much. you don't have to come back. i want to thank everyone in the committee -- and we are going to temporary recess until mr. scott comes back up, and then yeah. go to vote and then come back up and then get him going and mr. woodall can take over. we wait until mr. scott comes back. this committee will reconvene.
rules committee will reconvene. our next witness, mr. scott. thank you for your patience. go ahead. >> after an hour and a half in those chairs, the rest of the week should be a breeze. i would suggest if you need a shorter committee time, swap the chairs. rep. mcgovern: we don't have any time -- >> as you remember, mr. chairman, you worked closely with myself and congressman bishop on disaster relief a couple of months ago. several storms hit the united states in 2018. the rate -- latest was hurricane michael that straddled my district and congressman bishop's district. i have spoken several times on this and i think every member of this committee has been supportive of what we have tried to do in passing this disaster bill. this amendment is simple. it adds hr 268 to your current
legislation. to your current legislation, simply adds to the end of it. very quickly, one of the things that has not been talked about much recently is the fact that the air force has used virtually all of their operations to make for the fiscal year and if they don't get something before we leave for the break they are , going to find themselves in dire straits. there are $750 million in this language for puerto rico. that is $600 million for food stamps, and in addition to that, on page 56 in the amendment, you will see the $150 million that was added in the house version of the bill. it is with the exception of a couple of amendments, it is
identical to what we passed. i appreciate you being here, and i certainly sympathetic to am your case here. and i know how your constituents have been impacted, and how this is important because you have raised that historically and in the disaster relief package that we have passed in the house your , priorities were reflected in that. i hope we can figure out a way to get this thing resolved because there are a lot of people in this country that are relying on us to get this right. i would appreciate you being here. mr. woodall? : thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith talks about this nonstop, every meeting i am in with him. his constituents have their hopes in the process and they
have been repaid with disappointment over this republican leadership and now democratic leadership. i understand that, as i know mr. doherty does there are waivers , that would be required to make this in order, but i don't believe we will find a member on the floor of the house that does not want to see families affected by typhoons, by wildfires, by volcanic activity, by hurricanes -- know that the government has their back in this way. i know it's unusual to offer a waiver of the magnitude that the gentleman from georgia needs, but he has knocked on every single door on our side of the hill, the other side of the hill and that is the hope of these families that stretch from georgia to puerto rico from florida to california and i hope we don't let them down. >> thanks for your persistence. i pass.
rep. mcgovern: mr. cameron? morelle? >> your remarks, mr. woodall, you have been steadfast in your advocacy on this issue, and we need to resolve this one way or the other, so i thank you for your patience. thank you for waiting here and we look forward to working with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for your support in the prior meeting as well. rep. mcgovern: are there any other members who wish to testify this legislation? hearing none, we will close this hearing portion of the meeting. i think we will reconvene after the next vote. the last vote. i think we should be ready to report at that point. so we will [indiscernible]
rep. mcgovern: the rules committee will come to order. there is a motion for the distant west member from new york, mr. marelli. e: i move for -- save the internet act. it provides one hour of general debating, control for the chair and raking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. we waive all points of order. we make an original quarter for the purpose of amendment and amendment of the rules committee print 116 and says it should be read. we waive all points of order. the rule makes an order only those limits printed in part a of the committee report. each amendment can only be offered in the order printed in the report. beered by a report -- should read and debatable for the time
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the opponent and proponent. it should not be subject to a demand for division of the question. they've -- the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instruction. investingprovides the for the people act of 2019 under a structured rule. it provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and raking committee member. we rave -- waive all points of order. original text for the purpose of amendment and amendment in the nature of a provides that it shall be considered as read. the role makes an order only those further amendments printed as are reported. they may be offered only in the manner printed in the report.
they shall be considered as read. shall be debatable. and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment. or a demand. printed in part b of the report. the report provides one motion to recommit. this is hereby adopted. betweenegislative day april 11 through april to six, the journal will proceed to the previous day and shall be considered as approved. the role cards that a speaker may provide members to perform duties of the chair for the duration of the perio. -- period. this shall not constitute a calendar date for sections of the war power resolution.
i sent a letter with 59 members from both sides of the isle including democratic and republican members of the budget resolution committee to ask that this be made an order. this is an issue of fairness. only the indian health care services under discretionary. and as my good friend from colorado pointed out, we have had five government shutdown and each one has impacted negatively the indian health services. my own tribe which was fortunate enough to be successful, we opted to keep six months of reserves out of our funds to cover when this happened. the ability. have
you're talking about nurses and doctors not being paid. this is something we can do in a bipartisan manner. i would like to move to make this an order here. >> i appreciate the gentleman's amendment. that the the bill gentleman is referencing. the maccallum bill. i think there is an issue of -- of where would be an appropriate place to attach this. we need to find a way to bring this up in a bipartisan way. the gentleman has been steadfast in his advocacy of it. i will reluctantly urge a no vote. is there any other discussion? clerk will call the role. call]ll
>> the clerk will report the total. thank you very much, mr. chairman. to the ruleendment to make an order and provide necessary waivers for amendment number 17. offered from ms. worn. -- ms. warren. the amendment identifies challenges for the rule of law band provider specifically to serve-- designated in high-cost areas to maintain
and upgrade and to expand their networks. i want to thank my friend in my own delegation from the other side of the aisle for offering this amendment. i think it is an important one that we represent a lot of areas like this. >> mr. chair, i also support this motion because i believe that the availability and sustainability of a rural broadband networks is very important. >> [roll call]
>> mr. cole, thank you, mr. chairman. i would lock it -- i would like to offer a motion. we all agree on net neutrality internetprotect free for consumers. although we may disagree on policy specifics, there are real issues with this bill. this amendment addresses many areas of concern for republicans. this is not net neutrality. the amendment serves -- desserts a fair andeserves open debate on the floor. >> is there any discussion? [roll call]
a 35 dayndured government shutdown. the longest in history. in this committee, we are doing everything we can to ensure we don't have another government shutdown. this is a safety net. my majority leader hoyer has said the budget is a possible item for consideration. whatever comes up, we will have a path forward. that is why we are doing this. >> [roll call]
>> further amendments, mr. woodall? >> necessary waivers to amendment number nine in hr 2021. you heard his presentation. leavingthe only train the station that is providing relief. those people have been waiting too long and they deserve a vote on the house floor. woodall ae heard the movement. i will recommend a no. [roll call]
>> further amendments? mr. burgess? toi have an amendment amendment number six. trade.ills of all including mandatory steps. there was at that time bipartisan consensus. paid for by reducing mandatory spending. this amendment discontinues that policy. by making increases in the discretionary caps. i urge support of the amendment. i want to thank the gentleman
amendment to grant the necessary waivers from emmett number one offered by mr. biggs and myself. recognizes that the national debt is a threat to our national security. >> you have heard the less go amendment. any discussion? hearing none. ms. lesko, a rollcall? l.e clerk will call the rol >> [roll call] >> further amendments?
mr. -- ms. lesko? >> providing the necessary waivers for amendment number 10. this amendment would require conference to take a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution later this year. >> you have heard the amendment from the gentlewoman. any discussion? hearing none. want to a rollcall? >> yes. >> [roll call] >> any other amendment or
details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. contact and bio information about every senator and representative, plus information about congressional committees. state governors and the cabinet. the 2019 congressional directory is a handy, spiral-bound guide. order yours from the c-span online store for $18.95. month on c-span, we will feature the winners of our studentcam document or competition. middleton high school students created videos answering the question "what does it mean to be american?" our second present middle school eighth graders at eastern middle school in solar spring, maryland, were c-span is available through comcast. their winning entry is titled "the youth ballot: lowering the voting age." believes founded on