On the recordApril 15, 2016
I rise for my closing statement to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Again, I think it is overly broad. Beyond that, the gentleman from Kentucky kind of hit it on the head when he said that this doesn't require the FCC to do anything in terms of the machine-readable technology and all. Because, in theory, in reality, the way it is written, it basically says: nothing in this bill prevents them from doing something, by the way, which they can already do. The whole point, though, is this has nothing to do with the issue at hand in the legislation. Our constituents really believe we should take one issue at a time. The issue here is about controlling a bureaucracy from doing something it has never had the power to do before: giving clarity in the marketplace, that they cannot regulate the rates of Internet service providers, which, in effect, has the ability of regulating innovation in new offerings for consumers. So I must oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
