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 flakes 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 nations 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 casebycase 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 im quoting from their letter now. The rulemaking intends to go well beyond the traditional framework that has guarded consumers from Internet Service providers and illserved 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 casebycase 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 bigtech 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, socalled 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 its 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 dont 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. Thats it. Thats all thatst thats all thats being asked of them. These modest rules dont 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 thats 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 dont have to ask before selling all of that information and they dont 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 arent 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. Wont 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 casebycase 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 isps a coalition of civil rights organizations and consumers unions opposing this c. R. A. And i have articles by free pressened the open Technology Institute opposing the c. R. A. , a current oped 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 casebycase 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, dont 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 nations 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. Clmplets 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 couldnt coit 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. Its like open the door and theres no one there. Thats 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 its gone today, its 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 its reason enough to put Privacy Protections in place but its 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 dont pay to use Search Engines or social media applications like google and facebook. If they dont like googles privacy policy, they can switch over to bing without paying any fees. But consumers cant 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 rul