Mr. Chairman, we are not here to debate the merits of the net neutrality rule. Everybody knows how controversial it was. It has been pointed out there are 4 million objections or supporters. I don't know how they were split, but there were millions for, millions against. It just tells you how controversial it is. So all this provision says is: let's wait until it is finally resolved. We all know that it is going to end up in the United States Supreme Court. And once it has been determined yes or no, then the FCC ought to enforce it. But until that time, it ought to be stayed through the legislative process. That is what this bill does. That is what the amendment attempts to undo. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Share & report
More from Dan Crenshaw
Mr. Chair, to those opposed to the underlying bill, I understand. We are going to have to agree to disagree, but I cannot imagine being opposed to this amendment, even if you vote against the overall bill. I thought we all agreed that the…
I think we need to continue seeing more of it. I think we need to know that the administration meant what they said when they said we're going to keep doing this for a period of time.
everything we are referring to here is a cost-benefit analysis. What is the benefit you are getting for the cost that you are incurring on people who can probably afford to pay it the least?
What do we think this multihundreds of billions of dollars of investment, what do we think it is going to do for our climate? This is just a cost-benefit question.





