resolution 34 which disapproves of the rules of the federal communications commission relating to privacy of customer of broadband and other telecommunication services. i applaud senator flake's work on this issue as it was passed by the senate last week. i filed a companion resolution in the house. the f.c.c. finalized its broadband privacy rules on october 27, 2016. they assured us the rules would provide broadband customers greater choice, greater transparency and stronger security protections for their personal information collected by internet service providers, but the reality is much different. there are three specific problems with which the f.c.c. has gone about these rules. first, the f.c.c. unilaterally swiped jurisdictions from the federal trade jurisdiction. the f.t.c. has served as our nation's sole online privacy regulator for over 20 years. second, having two privacy cops on the beat will create confusion with the internet echo system and will end up harming consumers. third, the f.c.c. has authority to enforce privacy obligations of broadband service providers on a case-by-case basis. these broadband privacy rules are unnecessary and another example of big government overreach. the competitive enterprise institute estimates that federal regulations costs our economy $1.9 trillion in 2015. since president trump took office, republicans have been working diligently to loosen the regulatory environment that is suffocating taxpayers. here is what multiple democrats said in a letter to the f.c.c. last may regarding the f.c.c.'s privacy rules and i'm quoting from their letter now. the rulemaking intends to go well beyond the traditional framework that has guarded consumers from internet service providers and ill-served consumers who seek and expect consistency in how their personal data is protected. further, f.t.c. commissioner joshua wright testified before congress that the f.t.c. has unique experience in enforcing broadband service to protect the privacy of consumer data. he added that the rules will actually do less to protect consumers by depriving the f.t.c. of its long standing jurisdiction in the area. once again, these rules hurt consumers. incredibly, former f.c.c. chairman tom wheeler referred to the internet as the most powerful and pervasive network in the history of the planet before these rules were even created. i found this really odd, because it implied that the f.t.c. regulation had indeed been successful and ought to continue ultimately undermining his own rationally for additional f.c.c. privacy regulation. there are a couple of myths that are going around that i want to take the time to dispel. our friends claim there will be f.c.c.or i.f.c.'s in the privacy rules when they are overturned. and this is simply false and let me tell you why. the f.c.c. already has the authority to enforce the privacy obligations of broad bad service providers on a case-by-case basis. pursuant to section 201 of the communication act they can police police i.s.p.'s that are njust or unreasonable. it is already in statute. so i encourage my friends to read title 2 of the communications act. also, the state attorneys general have the ability to go after companies for unfair and deceptive practices. third, litigation is another avenue consumers can pursue against the i.s.p.'s for mishandling personal data. service providers have privacy policies. if they violate the policy, guess what? they can be sued. i know democrats will certainly understand that as they have many trial lawyer friends. and i urge them to speak to the trial bar. fourth, the free market is another great equalizer. can you imagine the embarrassment for an i.s.p. that caught unlawfully selling data? we have seen the economic fallout from something such as a data breach. companies have a financial incentive to handle your personal data properly, because to do otherwise would significantly impair their financial standing. to my democrat friends across the aisle, the bottom line is this, the only gap that exists is in these arguments that you have made. consumer privacy is something we all want to protect. and consumer privacy will continue to be protected and will actually be enhanced by removing the uncertainty and confusion these rules will create. schrader ocrats rush, and greene indicated in a letter to the f.c.c. last may. i want to speak about the edge providers because there is question about who has visibility into your data. clinton administration expert offered a report in february of 2016 titled online privacy and i.s.p.'s. i.s.p.'s access to consumer data is limited and often less than access to others. he found that i.s.p.'s have less visibility into consumer behavior online than search, social media, advertising and big-tech companies. his study found that as a result of advancing technologies, the rise of encryption and the various ways and locations that individuals access the internet, i.s.p.'s have now increasingly limited insight into our activities and information online. by contrast, however, so-called edge providers like search engines, social media, advertising, shopping and other services online often have greater visibility into personal consumer data. mr. speaker, at this time, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. doyle: i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to senate joint resolution 34. today, colleagues, we are waste deep in the swamp. the american people did not ask for this resolution. in fact, no company will even put its name behind this effort. instead, this resolution is the result of a written request from washington lobbyists. these lobbyists make the bogus claim that having actual protections will confuse consumers and the only way to clear up this information is to have no rules at all. no consumer has come forward to support this position. no consumer has said this argument even makes sense. i challenge every member of this body at your next town hall meeting to have a show of hands of how many people think it's a good idea to allow your internet service provider to sell their personal information without their permission. and then after you get that show of hands, ask them how many would vote for you if you support allowing corporations to do that. this resolution is of the swamp and for the swapp and no one else. the rules of this resolution would overturn rules that are simple and make common sense. they don't require much but three things. internet service providers should ask permission for selling your browsing history. two, once to two, once they have your information they should take reasonable efforts to protect it and finally if the information gets stolen, the company should quickly let you know. that's it. that's all thatst -- that's all that's being asked of them. these modest rules don't stop internet service providers from using data for advertising or profiling or whatever else, so long as they ask first. i.s.p.'s have an obligation under these rules not to dive into the personal lives of americans unless that's what those americans want. they just need to ask first. this is particularly true because broadband providers see literally everything you do online. every website you visit, every app, every device, every time. by analyzing your internet usage and browsing history, these companies will know more about you than members of your own family. more than you tell your doctor. more than you know about yourself. and without these rules, these companies don't have to ask before selling all of that information and they don't have to take reasonable measures to protect that information when they collect it. make no mistake about this, colleagues. anyone who votes for this bill is telling your constituents that they no longer have the freedom to decide how to control their own information. you have given that freedom away to big corporations. more importantly, there aren't rules to fall back on if congress scraps these ones. critics of the rules argue that the federal trade commission should oversee the privacy protection for broadband providers. but under current law, they have no authority to do so. and the c.r.a. won't do a thing to fix that. under a federal court of appeals case, the f.t.c. has no authority over mobile broadband providers at all. and to those that say the f.c.c. can evaluate complaints on a case-by-case basis, using its statutory authority, the current chairman, your current chairman, stated that section 222 can not be used to protect -- cannot be used to protect personal information and rules are necessary to enforce this statute. mr. speaker, i want to ask unanimous consent to introduce that statement by the f.c.c. commissioner into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. doyle: without these protections there will be no clear rules of the road. at a time when foreign actors like the russians, chinese, and everyone else under the sun are constantly trying to steal our data and compromise our security, it would be irresponse to believe roll back the only federal safeguards we have. i want my colleagues to think long and hard before you give corporations the ability to sell your information without their permission. mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to introduce a number of items in the record, i have letters from a coalition of small isp's a coalition of civil rights organizations and consumers unions opposing this c.r.a. and i have articles by "free press"ened the open technology institute opposing the c.r.a., a current op-ed opposing it and a memorandum from engineers opposing the c.r.a. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the matters will be file. the gentleman is reminded to address the chair. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i will remind my colleagues across the aisle, mr. speaker, that again, section 222 of the communications act covers the authority that the f.c.c. needs. traditionally online privacy has been handled by the f.t.c. that is an authority that we have designated to them. at this time, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from oregon who is chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. wanled. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleagues for their good work on thegs as we increasingly rely on technology in nearly every area of our lives, one of congress' most important responsibilities is to strike the right balance tween protecting consumers privacy while providing for job and economic growth. this reverses overreach, shortsighted rules adopted by unelected bureaucrats at the federal communications commission. they do little to enhance privacy but clearly add -- a new layer of red tape on innovators and job creators. this is exactly the type of government overreach the congressional review act was meant to stop. frool communications commission overstepped its bound on many things during the obama administration, including privacy regulations of a stripping the federal trade commission of its authority over privacy practices of i.s.p.'s, the f.c.c. adopted shortsighted rules that only apply to one part of the internet. despite the f.t.c.'s proven case-by-case approach to privacy enforcement that frankly protected consumers while simultaneously allowing the i.s.p.'s to innovate, the f.c.c. decided to abandon this model in favor of an approach that sigh sume -- that assumes the federal government knows best what consumers want. the regulations would require companies to apply the same privacy protections to consumer data regardless of its importance or sensitivity. hardly makes sense to treat a local weather update and personal financial information in the same way. the f.c.c.'s approach only protects consumer data as far as the internet service provider is involved. an entirely different set of ules applies to edge services. that means giant search engines, one of which controls 65% of your searches on the internet, don't live by the same rules as your small town i.s.p. what america needs is one standard and the federal trade commission is the best place for that standard. the impact of these ringed regulations has the potential to stifle one of the most in-- innovative sectors of our nation's economy. these rules, which congress will repeal, only lead to higher cost, less competition and fewer service offerings. this approach is particularly burdensome for small businesses which do not have hallways full of lawyers to navigate these tedious and unnecessary rules. the benefits of the f.c. clmplet's privacy -- f.c.c.'s privacy regulations are questionable but the harms are certain. once these rules are reversed the f.c.c. can go back to working together with the f.f.c. to allow the internet to flourish while truly protecting consumers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mrs. blackburn reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: i would remind my friends that under current law, the f.t.c. has no authority to regulate i.s.p.'s. and that it was your current f.c.c. commissioner who said they couldn't co-it under section 222 also, which i have submitted for the record. i would now like to yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend, mr. doyle, for his leadership and for yielding time to me. america, listen up today. there may not be that many people on the floor of the house, but this is a big one. this is really a big one. congress is poised today to betray the american people on one of the issues they care the most about. their privacy. their privacy. every single one of us cares about it. so do the american people. i often say that every american has it in their d.n.a. keep your mits off of my privacy. what i consider to be private. now the consequences of passing this resolution are clear. broadband providers like at&t, comcast and others will be able to sell your personal information to the highest bidder without your permission and no one will be able to protect you. not even the federal trade commission that our friends on the other side of the aisle keep talking about. it's like open the door and there's no one there. that's what this thing creates. the republicans are blowing a gaping hole in federal privacy protections by barring the f.c.c. from ever adopting similar protections in the future. so if it's gone today, it's gone. period. the f.c.c. rules are simple. they require broadband providers to get the permission of their customers, including all of us, before they can sell their web browsing history, their location information, and other sensitive data to third parties. the majority claims that we need to repeal these protections because they treat broadband providers differently than other online service providers. edge providers. broadband providers are in the unique position of seeing everything we do on the internet. this is the reason and it's reason enough to put privacy protections in place but it's also important to keep in mind that consumers, all of us, pay a high monthly fee to broadband providers and they face serious barriers if they want to switch. if i want to switch, if you want to switch, you have to many times pay early terminations fees. this is completely different from other online services. the -- that collect consumer data. consumers don't pay to use search engines or social media applications like google and facebook. if they don't like google's privacy policy, they can switch over to bing without paying any fees. but consumers can't do this with broadband providers and therein lies the difference. last week we heard the republicans bemoan the lack of choice in the health care market. they should take a closer look at the state of the broadband market. particularly in rural america. where only 13% of consumers have access to more than one high speed broadband provider. so the majority is telling americans today, particularly those in rural areas, that they need to choose between their privacy and their access to the internet. if this resolution passes, people across the country will certainly not have both. this resolution is, excuse the phrase, this is repeal without replace. the republicans have not put forward any privacy proposal at all to replace the f.c.c.'s rules. despite knowing that repealing these rules will leave a gap in the federal protections. so the message to the american people is clear. your privacy doesn't matter. and your web browsing history should be available to anyone who will pay the highest price for it. for all these reasons i urge my colleagues to stand up for privacy rights and oppose this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doyle reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield all remaining time to mr. flores of texas, he will control our time and manage that for our members and i yield to mr. flores. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. flores: i thank the gentlelady for yielding the balance of her time to me. as an original co-sponsor of the house companion to s.j.res. 34, i rise to strongly urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us today. like all my colleagues in the house, i care deeply about protecting the privacy of our constituents. but i cannot support the federal communications commission's counterproductive rules that will actually harm consumers and stifle innovation. for 20 years, the federal trade commission or f.t.c. as we call it frequently, oversaw consumer privacy for the entire internet ecosystem. content providers, advertisers and internetter is vise providers or i.s.p.'s. the f.t.c.'s privacy program focused on protecting sensitive consumer data and took the context of a consumer's relationship with businesses into consideration. the f.t.c.'s experience in implementing wide range of rules and regulations resulted in 500 cases protecting consumer information, ensuring privacy online. in a flawed political move, absent of any findings, complaints or investigations to determine whether broadband providers violated consumer privacy or that the f.t.c. had failed at doing its job, the f.c.c. proceeded with a partisan vote to target i.s.p.'s and to expand its regulatory footprint. after stripping the f.t.c. of its authority over the privacy practice of -- privacy practices of internet service providers, the f.c.c. subsequently adopted rules that would harm consumers and split the internet. creating an uneven playing field between service providers and content providers. congress must fix this overreach so the new administration can create a comprehensive, consistent set of privacy protections. consumers expect our privacy to be protected the same way no matter what type of entity holds their data. having two sets of requirements creates confusion for consumers and may jeopardize their confidence in the internet. our internet economy has thrived under the privacy regime created by the f.t.c. yet the f.c.c. under its previous chairman, tom wheeler, wanted to undermine that success by bifurcating privacy protections to serve outside political interests, not the american consumer. . the f.c.c. did not base its approach on consumer preferences about sensitive information and to set opt in and opt out defaults accordingly, its overall approach was top-down, heavy-handed regulation and stark contrast to the f.c.c.'s greater reliance on market and consumer preferences. the f.c.c.'s rule has a number of problematic issues. the first is that the opt-in, opt-out regime reduces consumer choice and would be detrimental to the survival of many businesses in this country. the second is that the f.c.c. would have prohibited unforeseeable future uses of collective data regardless what consumers actually preferred and businesses may need. third, the f.c.c. would also have unjustly applied its heavy-handed approach to broadband provide excreating them more -- treating them more harshly than other platers in the internet ecosystem. and some, the f.c.c.'s broadband privacy protection approach would have rejected free markets and ignored sound economics. alternatively, the f.c.c. private enforcement is market-oriented and flexible and adaptable to changes and con-- in consumer preferences and markets. it also creates companies and players neutrally, fostering an environment of competition and innovation. this resolution rescinds the f.c.c.'s -- the f.c.c. rule but it does not provide more -- but it does provide -- excuse me -- the f.c.c. the opportunity to provide oversight more in line with the f.t.c. which has been successfully regulating online privacy for nearly two decades. this bill does not lessen or impede the privacy and data security standards that have already been established. we are simply restoring a more stable regulatory playing field to ensure the consistent, uniform privacy security standards are maintained to protect consumers and future innovation. once congress rejects these rules, the f.c.c. can turn back to cooperating with the f.t.c. to ensure that both consumer privacy across all aspects of the internet is provided through rigorous enforcement and also that innovation is allowed to flourish. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. flores reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd just remind my colleague once again that the f.t.c. has no authority to regulate i.s.p.'s. once this bill is implemented, and consumers will not be protected and the current f.c.c. commissioner has stated that. mr. speaker, i now want to yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. degette: thank you so very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i oppose this bill because it would remove consumers' right to control their online privacy and put it in the hands of corporations. every time people go online, they create trails of data that has tremendous commercial value. this creates incentive for the i.s.p.'s to sell web history to a third party, be it an advocacy group, a for-profit company or even a foreign government. like last year, the f.c.c. put americans in charge of how i.s.p.'s use and share their consumer data. the f.c.c.'s rule also required that the i.s.p.'s engage in reasonable data security practices. even if people believe that the f.c.c.'s rule went too far and should be modified, it's unclear how the f.c.c. could move forward with such a plan given the constraints of the congressional review act. furthermore, as several people have mentioned, the f.c.c., which is charged with protecting consumers' privacy, does not even have the authority to oversee i.s.p. practices. given the number of data breaches in the recent years of companies such as yahoo!, we should frankly be strengthening data retention requirements, not weakening them. at its core, this bill weakens consumer protections today and makes them harder to implement in the future, which is why i oppose -- i urge my colleagues to oppose it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doyle reserves his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: i yield the gentleman from iowa two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, when the f.c.c. reclassified the internet as a common carrier, utility-style service and adopted their rules regulating the use of consumer data by internet service providers, it represented a monumental shift how we view privacy. instead of a uniformed, technology-neutral standard that balances data protection with consumer choice, internet users were stuck with a two-sided approach that causes confusion and dampens competition. there is one set of rules for service providers and one set for the rest of the internet ecosystem, but how often do consumers really recognize the difference between where their data is accessed and where it's stored? ultimately, consumers are actually harmed by the artificial sense of protection created by these rules. it is essential that we take steps to restore the time-tested framework embraced by the federal trade commission. we've talked a lot about protecting consumer privacy and data, but i haven't heard a lot about allowing the consumer to decide how their information is used. consumers deserve to have the autonomy to control their information and their internet experience. as acting chairman of the f.t.c., maureen pointed out, the f.t.c. approach reflects the fact that consumer privacy preferences differ greatly depending on the type of data and its use. there is widespread agreement that sensitive data should be strongly protected and opt in appropriate. but what about other types of nonsensitive data? let's not forget the ways that consumers benefit from allowing i.s.p.'s access to that kind of information. consumers should retain the ability to make the decisions that make sense for them when it comes to how their nonsensitive data is used and obtain the discounts or lower prices that can result. this vote isn't about reducing the level of privacy protection for consumers. it's about an f.c.c. decision that ignored the preferences of consumers in favor of a regulatory power grab. i'm finishing up. can i have 15 more seconds, mr. speaker? the f.c.c.'s privacy rules are an overreaching regulatory mess that create confusion and inconsistency for consumers, harm competition and up-end internet privacy as we know it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. flores reserves his time. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: might i inquire how much time remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 19 minutes. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 11 3/4. mr. doyle: thank you. i would remind my colleagues, whether it's nonsensitive information or sensitive information, the i.s.p. should ask for your permission to use it. at this time, mr. speaker, i want to yield five minutes to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. pallone from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i don't plan to use the entire five minutes, but nearly every day now we hear about new ways our enemies are trying to steal americans' information. just a couple weeks ago, two russian hackers were indicted for stealing personal information from millions of us. american consumers visit billions of internet destinations through a multitude of devices. broadband providers potentially have access to every bit of data that flows from a consumer. and the american people are rightfully concerned about companies selling their personal information, including sensitive information like their location, financial and health information, social security numbers and information about their children. so late last year the f.c.c. took steps to protect every american citizens' data and privacy and the rules were simple. broadband had to ask them. second, the company had to take reasonable measures to protect that data. third, the companies had to let people know if their data was stolen. and that was a good first step, mr. speaker, but congress also has a role in protecting our data and we should be working in a bipartisan fashion to discuss ways we can better protect the american people's data. but instead, the republicans have decided to spend this time wiping out the few privacy safeguards we already have. the f.c.c. cybersecurity rules are in my opinion not burdensome. they simply tell the network providers to be reasonable in protecting the data. that's all. the f.c.c. left it to the companies themselves to use their best judgment in how to get the job done. they just needed to be reasonable. but it seems being reasonable is still too much for the republicans. first, in the senate and now here in the house. so this resolution tells the companies charged with running the country's broadband networks that they no longer have to be reasonable when it comes to their customers' data. so i say, mr. speaker, make no mistake. this resolution is a gift to countries like russia who want to take our citizens' personal information, and if the house passes this resolution, it will go straight to the president's desk, a president who will be more than happy to sign his name to this gift to the russians. this resolution also gives large corporations free rein to take cus mothers' data without anyone's -- customers' data without anyone's permission. we hear all kinds of complicated arguments about jurisdiction, implementation dates and who knows what else, but these arguments just muddy the water. republicans will say that the f.c.c.'s rules are confusing the consumers. people won't know what to do if they're asked first before broadband companies sell their sensitive information. but if that were the case, we would have heard from people who oppose the rules but we simply have not heard any of those concerns. the facts speak for themselves. consumers want more privacy protection, not less. 74% of americans say it's very important they be in control of information and 91% of people feel they have lost control over their own information. and there are real consequences to these feelings. nearly half of americans say they limit their online activity because they're worried about their privacy and security, so that's why they support stronger protections. so the f.c.c. listened to the american people, adopted reasonable rules despite republican claims to the contrary. the rules were not hard to follow. the rules still allow broadband companies to offer services based on their customers' data and they can still customize ads and send reminders. the rule had them ask people first before selling their information. that's it. i hoped the f.c.c. would have gone even further but the agency chose this more moderate approach. we should be asking one simple question. should the american people have the freedom to choose how their information is used or should the government give that freedom away? and i think the answer is clear. i stand with the american people and, therefore, i strongly oppose this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: we yield the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. latta: well, thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the resolution and want to address an issue created by the federal communications commission's misguided privacy rule in a recent ninth circuit case. for decades, the federal trade commission has been the privacy cop on the beat for most industries, including the technology sector, protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. the federal trade commission brought over 500 privacy and data security cases to protect consumers. these include cases against internet service providers in some -- and some of the largest providers. the federal communications commission is a regulatory body regulating communication by radio, television, satellite and cable. the federal trade commission has been long been held up as a model by both parties praising the agency for strong enforcement without overly burdensome regulations. during negotiations with the european union to finalize the u.s.-european privacy shield, the obama administration held up the federal trade commission as the premiere privacy enforcement agency. unfortunately, in a midnight action, the federal communications commission jammed through its own privacy rule that's very different from the framework that federal trade commission has been enforcing for decades. while we can reverse the poorly constructed f.c.c. rule today we must still address a recent court ruling. the ninth circuit recently ruled that the common carrier exemption in the federal trade commission act exempts an entity entirely from the federal communications commission's jurisdiction if it engages in any common carrier activities, even if the company also engages in noncommon carrier activity. i have introduced legislation to address the court's ruling with the gentleman from texas, mr. olson. it's my hope my colleagues will join us. this bill makes clear that the federal trade commission has authority over common carriers when they're acting outside the scope of the common carrier. the federal communication -- the federal communications commission creates a gap and will leave portions of the internet ecosystem completely outside the federal trade commission's jurisdiction. this bill makes clear that the common carrier exemption is important to ensure that no duplication regulation occurs but at the same time there are no loopholes left for certain companies be outside the jurisdiction of the federal trade commission. we need to be consistent in our approach to privacy and focus on consumer enforcement. this approach has been the foundation not just for silicon valley by innovators across the country and the bill sets right and spurred job growth in the united states and greater online services for consumers. i thank the gentleman for yielding and, mr. speaker, as i said, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. flores reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd remind my friend since he acknowledges the court decision does not allow f.t.c. jurisdiction and he wants to introduce a bill, perhaps the republicans should have done that first before scrapping the rules that leave i.s.p.'s with no rules. i'll like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. matsui: i rise in strong opposition to s.j.res. 34. this is just the latest attempt from our republican colleagues to use the congressional review act to gut critical protections from mesh consumers. the internet is increasingly intertwined with our daily lives and nearly every american family uses the internet to access and share personal and sensitive information. the business we conduct online includes financial information, details about our medical history, and even information on our kids. if this resolution of disapproval passes today, there'll be no rules on the books to stop internet service providers from selling that browsing history without your permission. and because our republican colleagues are using the congressional review act to overturn these critical consumer protections, the f.c.c. can't go back and write new rules in the future and despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, the federal trade commission cannot bring cases against broadband providers. that's why the f.t.c. supported these rules. when the f.c.c. adopted them last year. this resolution effectively eliminates the f.c.c. from ever acting to protect consumer privacy in the future. we should be working together to address any real shortcomings if these rules need to be fixed. that's not what the resolution before us will do. i urge my colleagues to vote against this damaging resolution. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doyle reserves. mr. flores. mr. flores: i yield the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to support h.j. resolution 34, which seeks to halt agency overreach of the federal communications commission concerning the way broadband internet service providers handle their customers' information. the f.c.c.'s broadband rule adopted on an executive order unnecessarily targets service providers and does little to protect consumer private sthism rule adds costly and unnecessary innovation stifling regulations to the internet and there's another example -- and is another example of the federal government's picking winners and losers. when passed, the f.c.c. claimed the rule would provide broadband customers meaningful choice and strong protections for the personal information collected by internet service providers. the ality, the f.c.c. -- f.c.c.'s rules arbitrarily treat i.s.p.'s differently, creating a false sense of privacy. privacy is is important to all americans and the proper party should address the issue. the federal trade commission has had authority and enforcement over online privacy rules. repealing the f.c.c.'s act is a ritical first step to creating a consistent sit of privacy rules to permit the f.c.c. and f.t.c. to continue to work to ensure consumer privacy through enforcement. the f.t.c., the premiere agency in this regard, has the ability to -- the premier agency in this regard, has the ability to protect privacy on the internet. a good question to ask the f.c.c., why did it wait until the last noiven obama administration to promulgate its regulation. mr. speaker, i believe it's important that we pass this s.j.r. and i rise to ask all of my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. flores reserves. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: yes, mr. speaker, i heard about this last-minute dropping and late at night. just for the other side' information, after a seven-month rule making process, this rule was adopted midday on october 26. so let's get the record straight. mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i'd now like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcnerney: i want to thank mr. doyle for his opposition to this s.j.res. 34. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition as well. e f.c.c.'s broadband privacy rules are common sense rule. these rules give consumers the ability to choose how their information is used and shared by their internet service providers according to the pre-- according to the research center, a large majority of americans say it's very important that they control who has access to their information. but despite a loud cry from the american people that they want to be able to choose how their information is used, s.j.res. 34 strips consumers of the power to choose how their i.s.p. uses an shared their information. this resolution also leaves consumers more vulnerable to attacks because their inch s.p. will no longer be required to make reasonable steps to secure their personal information. in recent years, we have seen numerous data breach incidents have -- that have jeopardized consumer information. some examples, yahoo, target, anthem, the list goes on. and given the growing cyberthreats that our nation faces, it's critical that we do more, more, not less will -- not less to secure consumers' data. strong data security practices -- practices are critical for protecting our consumers' confidentiality. this resolution would make consumers' data more susceptible to being stolen and used for identity theft and other harmful, unauthorized purposes. consumers want to be heard. they want more privacy. they want their information to be secure. we have an obligation to respond to their request. i'm appalled that one of the republican's first acts in this congress after trying to take health coverage away from 24 million people is to attack consumer protections and weaken data security. americans are just now hearing about this legislation and my phones are ringing off the hook in opposition. i have to rhetorically ask the other side, why are you pushing this? americans don't want it. your voters are beginning to pay attention. this is just after your humiliating the feet with the a.c.a. repeal. i ask that you withdraw this bill and start listening to your constituents. i urge my colleagues to reject s.j.res. 34 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doyle reserves his time. the gentleman from texas, in lohrs re. mr. flores: we yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, the g.o.p. whip of the house, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas for bringing forward this legislation. e f.t.c.'s light touch and case-by-case enforcement has fostered an internet economy that's become the enemy of the -- that's become the envy of the world. rather than following the f.t.c.'s proven framework of privacy protection, the f.c.c. came in and overreached and missed the mark with these rules, injecting more regulation into the internet ecosystem. with all due respect, the internet was not broken and did not need the federal government to come in and try to fix it this ebottom line is that families expect and ke serve to be protected online with a set of robust and uniform privacy protections. these rules simply do not live up to that standard. rather than regulating based on the sensitivity of our day tark these rules are applied unevenly, based on what type of company you are and what kind of technology you use. consumers should feel assured online that there's a cop on the beat with a track record of success. not an agency with a history of regulatory overreach. thesed my night rules are harmful,, inconsistent, and should be repealed. i urge my colleagues to adopt this important resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. flores reserves. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: could i inquire how much time is left on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 10 three quarters minutes. the gentleman from texas has five. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i remind the gentleman these heavy handed regulations that he speaks of are simply ask permission, protect people's data, and tell them if it fwets stolen that doesn't sound too heavy handed to me. mr. speaker, i would now like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: i thank you. i rise today in opposition to s.j. resolution 34, a bill that would strike most of the internet privacy guarantees protecting the american people today. i have grey concerns with this effort. our agenda here should be working on behalf of our constituents to protect their privacy and give them, not their service providers, data security. instead this effort would eviscerate any real online privacy protections and would limit data security. some of my colleagues have claimed that this common sense rule has created challenges for consumers. i have found just the opposite. my office has been inundated with calls demanding that congress protect their privacy and data security by opposing s.j. resolution 34. to everyone who has called, i hear you and i stand with you in opposing this harmful and misguided effort. back at home in new york's capital region, i have been hering from many people who are frightened by the thought that this bill will become law and the last shred of their online privacy will be lost forever. they know how much information their internet service provider has mined from their internet activity and they rightfully believe they should have a say in when that information can be bought and sold. they understand that gutting these privacy protections would mean that internetter is vice -- service providers could sell their private information without their permission. it means their private internet browsing and serge history, the text of their emails and mobile app use abbling can be sold without -- usage can be sold without their permission. they have a right to control who learns their information, they have a right to protect their social security numbers and the contents of their emails. privacy rules also require providers to use reasonable measures to protect consumers' personal information a clear and common sense standard that all who do business online should be required to uphold. finally, internet service providers must notify customers if hackers breach the system and may have access to their private data. with hackers from russia and elsewhere running rampant across the net this is a critical provision for our american families. this is not too much to ask. the american people deserve to know that their data will be protected and that they will be notified if their data is breached. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doyle reserves. in flores. in flores: i -- mr. flores: i yield the gentleman 90 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in support of h.j.res. 34 which will protect consumers in the future of internet innovation. the internet is changing the way we communicate, shop, learn and entertain. mr. olson: it's changing how we control our homes, our cars, and many other parts of our lives, including my two teenage kids. these changes give us certain expectations of privacy on the internet. until last year, the federal trade commission provided a robust, consistent privacy framework for all companies in he internet services market. their holistic and consistent approach struck the right balance. consumers' use of internet services continues to increase their -- and their privacy has been protected. this resolution we're voting on today puts all segments of the internet on equal footing. i urge my colleagues to vote for innovation and consumers and vote for this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. flores reserves his time. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: i would remind my friends once again that this does not put us on equal footing. the f.t.c. has no power to regulate i.s.p.'s under current law. with that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr capuano: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding. we know our cell phones are tracking every move we make and keeping a record of it. many people don't know but your automobile is also doing the same thing. they keep a record of where you go. they keep a record of whether you we are your seat belt. they keep a record of whether you applied the brakes or turned the turn signal on. ok. that's your automobile you don't have to drive. buttiest recently in the last couple of months, we have learned that our televisions, children's dolls are doing the same thing. last month it was revealed that vizio had spied on 11 million consumers by listening to them while their tv was off. because they can do it. also last month, a child's doll called my friend kayla, for little girls, or boys, was banned in germany, banned in germany because that doll listens and responds and it go into the internet and the doll's owner keeps and sells that information. this month the teddy bear manufactured by a company called cloud pets was exposed for collecting more than two million voice recordings of children alking to their teddy bears. i know those are not the items this bill would address, but the problem is you're taking it -- you're taking on it from i.s.p.'s and reduce it to this level. you say your privacy is protected, i just gave you three examples in the last two months where your privacy is not protected. neither is your children. neither is your family. in 2012, a giant international company, international i.s.p. company, by the way, filed for a u.s. patent for a cable box that would sit in your house. it would watch you. it would record you. it contained an infrared sensor and even take your body temperature with a thermal graphic -- and that's a quote -- thermal graphic camera. it would do all this without telling you and would work whether the cable box was on or off. if you don't believe me, if you still have the courage to go on the internet, go find patent application number -- now, ite this one down -- 20120304206. that's the patent application number. it's still online. i want to read you one small segment from that 25-page patent application, and this is a direct quote. i'm not making up a single word. the device, quote, may detect the two users are cuddling on a couch during the presentation of a television program and prior to an advertisement break. based on that detected action, the device would select a commercial associated with cuddling. for example -- can i have 30 seconds? mr. doyle: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. capuano: it would select a commercial associated with cuddling. for example, a commercial for a romantic getaway vacation. a commercial for a contraceptive. a commercial for flowers, etc. closed quote. i didn't make up a single word of what i just read, and every one of you is sitting there with your mouth open that this might happen in your world. that's what this bill will allow. and you can't turn it off. you can't say don't watch my children, don't watch my wife. this is a terrible bill. as i asked earlier today, what are you thinking? with that i yield back to mr. doyle. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doyle reserves his time. mr. flores. mr. flores: mr. speaker, we are thinking that the gentleman's comments do not pertain to this bill, that this bill in no way is going to allow any of the activities that were described, whether it's cuddling or anything that's going to get in the way of any of that or allowed to be sold. i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. collins, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: i'd like to thank the people who worked to make this legislation a reality. as we become increasingly concerned with cyberthreats, online privacy is a critical concern for every american. unfortunately, in october of last year, the f.c.c. issued regulations titled protecting the privacy of customers of broadband and other telecommunication services. also known as broadband privacy rules. these titles do not actually -- accurately reflect the impact these regulations are having on nstituents' electronic privacy. this took internet service providers, i.s.p.'s, which you subscribe to for tv and internet access, and edge providers that deliver online applications, services and web content and separated them into two different groups. this has caused confumers among businesses trying to adhere to this change. while writing this regulation, the f.c.c. had the opportunity to employ f.t.c. precedent in drafting the broadband privacy rules. but instead, chose to ignore existing precedent and create additional and onerous regulations. the f.c.c. believed that these new rules would give consumers more choice and heighten transparency. however, this has not been the case. this legislation does not remove privacy protections for consumers and it does not expose consumer information. both the f.c.c. and the f.t.c. will retain authority over consumer privacy on a case-by-case basis. i.s.p.'s will continue to be subject to the communications act of 1934, which protects all consumer proprietary network information. this is in addition to the many other existing federal and state privacy rules that i.s.p.'s must continue to follow. this proposed system, separating edge providers from i.s.p.'s, creates confusion for both consumers and business operations. this legislation works to reduce the confusion that has been created from this unnecessary regulation that has stifled competition and impeded innovation. i'm happy to support this legislation, which will provide much-needed clarity to the ongoing debate, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, could i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 5 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from texas two minutes. mr. doyle: i'd remind my friends, you can say it as many times as you want but the fact of the matter is that under current law the f.t.c. has no authority to regulate the f.c.c., and the f.c.c. commissioner has said that you cannot do this without a rule in section 222. i'd now like to yield the magic minute to our house democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i thank him on behalf of my five children and my nine grandchildren and everyone i know, as a matter of fact, for being a champion for privacy for the american people. thank you, mr. doyle, for your leadership. thank you, mr. pallone, for yours, and congresswoman eshoo has been a champion on this issue as well. mr. speaker, americans turn to the internet for so many things these days -- buying books, filing taxes, learning about why they are feeling sick. the republicans want this information to be sold without your permission. the websites you visit, the apps you use, your search history, the content of your emails, your health and financial data. overwhelmingly, the american people do not agree with the republicans that this information should be sold, and it certainly should not be sold without your permission. your broadband provider knows deeply -- our broadband providers know deeply personal information about us and our families -- where we are, what we want -- what we're looking for, what information we want to know, every site we visit and more. they can even track us, our broadband providers can even track us when we are surfing in a private brousing mode. americans' private browser history should not be up for sale, yet, the republicans are bringing s.j. resolution 34 to the floor to allow internet service providers -- excuse me, mr. speaker -- to profit, to profit. this is about profit from america's most intimate, personal information without our knowledge or our consent. republicans' use of the congressional review act will do permanent damage to the f.c.c.'s ability to keep america's personal information safe. as the f.c.c. commissioner clyburn and f.t.c. commissioner mcsweeney warned, this legislation will frustrate the f.c.c., the federal communications commission's future efforts to protect the privacy of voice and broadband customers. it's important for our constituents to know that if the republicans had a problem policy, particular they might tweak it and say we don't like it this way or that in regular legislation so that we could have a debate on it. it could go back to the federal communications commission. they could revise it and send it back. if it were a legitimate presentation of concerns. but it's not about a legitimate presentation of concerns. it's about increasing profits at the expense of the privacy of the american people. so as i say, the republicans' use of the congressional review act does permanent damage and also damages the f.c.c.'s ability to keep america's personal information safe. with this measure, republicans would destroy americans' right to privacy on the internet. we made that clear. and forbid any effort to keep your personal information safe. republicans are bending over backwards. think of it. think of the context of all of this. since gerald ford became -- was president, every candidate for president, every nominee of the major party, every candidate for president of the united states, democratic and republican, has had to -- has released their income tax returns out of respect for the american people, out of respect for the american people. week in and week out and sometimes day in and day out in committee as well as on the floor, the republicans have kept their president's income tax returns private when the republic has the right to know that, that the public has always known that about every president since gerald ford. in fact, since richard nixon, although in his case it wasn't voluntary. so while they're hiding president trump's tax returns, some discreet piece of information that the public has a right -- discrete piece of information that the public has a right to know, they're selling your most personal information -- again, your brousing history, your children's location, everything -- to anyone with the money to buy it. incognito tabs or brousing modes will not protect you from the -- brousing modes will not protect you from the internet -- browsing modes will not protect you from the internet service providers as mr. capuano pointed out, watching and selling. republicans have took the week after the russian spies were caught hacking into half a billion email accounts to open the floodgates, overturning the requirement that internet service providers keep their sensitive data secured from cybercriminals. the american people deserve to be able to insist that intimate details and information about their browser history be kept private and secure. so how's this? we have this magnificent technology that science has to available to people facilitate commerce, to learn to different subjects, privately pursue in a way they may not want their families to know what symptoms they have nd what illness that might tell them about. most americans have no or limited choices for broadband providers and no recourse against these invasions of their privacy, because with this measure, the republicans turn their back on the overwhelming number of americans who want more control over their internet privacy. americans can choose who represent them in congress. americans are paying close attention. they want to know who is taking a stand with them in opposing efforts to sell the private -- their private information to the american people. this is staggering. this is almost a surrender. if the republicans allowed to do this, we have surrendered all thoughts of privacy for the american people. privacy is a value that the american people treasure. it's about their dignity. it's about their dignity. we cannot allow the republicans to sell the dignity of the american people. i hope that everyone will vote no on this most unfortunate assault on the dignity of the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves his time. mr. flores. mr. flores: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. last week republicans tried to take away your health care. and today they're trying to take away your privacy. republicans have said broadband providers and other internet companies should be under the same privacy rules. but oddly enough, when the committee considered an amendment to give the f.t.c., the federal trade commission, rulemaking authority, like the f.c.c., it change -- a change that would allow the agencies to adopt the same privacy protections, every single republican voted no. in fact, republicans proposed making it harder for the f.t.c. to pursue privacy and data security cases. the protections that the f.c.c. adopted last year were very simple. consumers should know what data is being collected, opt in to sharing of sensitive data, have their data reasonably protected, and receive notice when their data is compromised. but this dangerous resolution puts america's privacy and data security at risk. i urge all of my colleagues to stand up for consumers and vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doil reserves his time -- mr. doyle reserves his time. mr. flores. mr. flores reserves. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, at it this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this resolution of disapproval, which would repeal broadband privacy rules by implementing -- being implemented by the f.c.c. as co-chair of the congressional cybersecurity caucus, i hope i can offer some additional perspective on this debate. studying the many threats our country faces in cyberspace, i have become deeply aware of how ingrained the internet is in every aspect of our lives and our economy. it has also helped me understand the unique role of broadband service providers to grant access to the great potential of the information age. by necessity i.s.p.'s can see every bit of traffic that leaves your network for the broader internet. even when you use encryption, i.s.p.'s can still capture data about whom you're talking to or what sites you're visiting. these data are sensitive and consumers have a right to decide whether or not they can be shared ormond advertised. unfortunately -- or monday titesed. unfortunately -- or monetized. unfortunately this would allow sharing without your permission. mr. speaker, the resolution before us today the republicans have proposed is down right creepy. and it's going to allow potentially unprecedented abuse of personal and private information be shared without your permission. this cannot stand. i urge my colleagues to oppose it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doyle reserves his time. mr. flores. mr. flores: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. a at this time i'd like to yield -- first of all, mr. speaker, can i inquire how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has two minutes. the gentleman from texas has two minutes. mr. doyle: thank you. we'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida, mrs. demings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. democrat democrat thank you, mr. speaker -- mrs. demings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, please stop me if you've heard this one before and know how it end. my colleagues on the other side are once again trying to sell the american people a broken alternative. to something that is working pretty much as it was intended to. the f.c.c. privacy rule just says that customers must opt-in before internet companies can sell their web browsing history. and that those companies must make reasonable efforts to protect customers' sensitive information. this is not unreasonable. this is not an unreasonable requirement. the internet is our gateway to the world. whether we connect through our mobile phone, or home computer. we pay companies for access. if those companies want to sell information about what we do on the internet, they should have to get our permission first. it's the right thing to do. and i urge my colleagues on the other side to simply do the right thing. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doyle reserves his time. mr. flores. mr. flores: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. doyle. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to submit the remainledser of my documents for the record -- remainder of my documents for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, my colleague from the class of 1994, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, a yes vote exempts all broadband service providers from all rules on user privacy and all limitations on how they use your data. you know, they're in you unique position -- in a unique position to see every place you go. every website you visit. they can do deep pact inspection and see what's in your emails. what protects your privacy? this rule that's about to be repealed. if you have problems with the privacy policies of your email provider or social network, you got competition to go to. but most americans have just one or at most two choices for their broadband provider. and interestingly enough, all of those providers are supported the -- supporting the repeal of this privacy rule. why? they're going to make money selling your information. you know, the idea that we can have an f.t.c. solution is an interesting one. but there's no way to do it. in the ninth circuit's 2016 ruling of at&t vs. f.t.c., they ruled that the f.t.c. is barred from imposing data breach rules. so, vote no, protect your constituents' privacy. the speaker pro tempore: mr. doyle. mr. doyle: mr. speaker, our time is all expired? i thank the speaker and ask my colleagues to please vote against this horrible bill. and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. flores. mr. flores: thank you, mr. speaker. we've heard a lot of interesting claims today and the discussion about this fairly simple resolution to roll back overreaching regulations from the f.c.c. that were passed late in the obama administration's time. i would remind everybody, mr. speaker, that this c.r.a. has nothing to do with the president's tax return. it has nothing to do with russian hacking. and there have been some gross mischaracterizations of what this resolution does. why do we need this resolution? three reasons, as chairwoman blackburn opened up at the beginning. first of all, the f.c.c. swipe jurisdiction from the f.t.c. secondly, two cops on the beat create confusion among consumers and among the i.s.p. providers. and number three, f.t.c. already has jurisdiction over this space. let me say this. let me close with this. this resolution only rescinds the f.c.c.'s rule, but it still provides the f.c.c. the opportunity to provide more oversight, more in line with the federal trade commission, which has successfully been regulating online privacy for nearly two decades. this bill does not lessen or impede the privacy and data security standards that we already have established. we are simply restoring a more stable regulatory playing field to ensure that consistent, uniform privacy sttstds are maintained -- standards are maintained to protect consumers and future innovation. once congress rejects these rules, the f.c.c. can turn back to cooperating with the f.t.c. to ensure both the consumer privacy across all aspects of the internet are protected through vigorous enforcement, and also that innovation is allowed to flourish. i urge all of my colleagues to >> it today on c-span, oh washington journal is next. half-hour, congressman bill by escrow -- -- congressman bill pascrell, then ♪ host: good morning, everyone. it is wednesday, march 29. we begin this morning with open phones with the latest on capitol hill and the white house and stories from around the country and overseas. you can start dialing in now. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can go to twitter as well or post your comments on facebook. we will get to your thoughts in a minute