C&T Subcommittee Markup of 28 Bills
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
They make the permitting process more predictable and push agencies to coordinate. Everyone benefits when we make the process more transparent. I'm especially proud of the Digital Applications Act, which I co-lead with representative Kamek. This bill creates a one-stop online portal to accept, process, and track broadband permitting applications on federal land. It promotes transparency and accountability for a process that's often fragmentary, helping us deliver predictable timelines without sacrificing the public interests.
Unfortunately, there are some bills today that I won't be able to support, proposals that will force local governments to meet tight deadlines without any extra staff or funding. And if this clock runs out, the project is automatically approved. That may sound like a way to speed things up, but in reality, it cuts out community input, leads to mistakes, and sets us up for more delays down the road. If we want fast reviews, we should give local communities more help, not take away their say. Let's be honest.
Let's call out what's really slowing deployment. The Trump administration's constant disruptions. Meanwhile, Republicans are cherry picking stories about slow permits to justify steamrolling local voices and rubber stamping approvals. Families in Sacramento, across all our districts, just want this to work. They want to get online, be able to afford their bills, and know the connection will be there when they need it.
We can get there if we work together. Let's pass our bipartisan bills, stop this administration from kneecapping federal broadband funding, and finally get shovels in the ground. With that, I look forward to the discussion of these bills, and I yield the balance of my time. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, the vice chairman of the subcommittee, for five minutes for an opening statement. He is speaking on behalf of the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the full committee. Gentlemen's recognized.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Chairman Hudson, for holding this important markup. Streamlining the broadband permitting process is important for two simple reasons: closing the digital divide and ensuring America's leadership in artificial intelligence. Broadband is an essential part of everyday life. Too many parts of this country, particularly rural areas like most of my district, are still unserved or under-served. And connectivity is essential for AI.
From utilizing AI tools to processing and transmitting data, we need to build the networks capable of meeting this demand. That's why we need to reform the permitting process and make it easier to deploy broadband. Today, this process often delays or even permits building this important infrastructure. Unpredictable timelines, expensive, and sometimes duplicative reviews, and the lack of transparency all contribute to making deployment more challenging and much more expensive. Unless we reform this process, the money and time that should be spent on deployment will instead be wasted navigating duplicative layers of red tape.
Legislation we are marking up today, 28 bills, will streamline the broadband permitting process and give providers the certainty and predictability they need as they plan their deployments. These bills put timelines on state and local permitting reviews, so providers know when they can expect decisions on their applications. Limit application fees so that money can be spent on construction instead of on paperwork. Exempt certain projects from redundant and expensive environmental and historic preservation reviews, encourage federal agencies to prioritize broadband applications, and provide transparency into the opaque federal permitting review process through requiring digital portals. Affordability for the American people is the word of the day.
Streamlining these processes will save the American people billions of dollars in bureaucratic red tape. I want to thank each of the sponsors of these bills, both Republicans and Democrats, for their work and commitment to ensuring that every American has access to connectivity, and that it is affordable. I look forward to moving these bills through our process and signing into law. With that, mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. I now recognize the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member, for five minutes for his opening statement.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad the committee is finally getting back to work after the Republican shutdown for more than 40 days, but I will continue to be critical of Speaker Johnson because he kept the House out of session during the entire shutdown and did not work with Democrats to make health care more affordable during that period. And after such a long and painful hiatus, it's unfortunate that our Republican colleagues have decided that the first order of business in this committee is a vote on their so-called broadband infrastructure permitting reform legislation. If Republicans are really serious about ensuring every American has access to affordable, high-speed Internet service, they would join us in fighting the Trump administration for its unacceptable delays of broadband deployment projects that were ready months ago. And this is the same package of partisan bills that Republicans pushed last Congress.
And after investing so much time and energy in this committee on the issue, our Republican colleagues never even put it on the floor for a vote. And there are two very simple reasons for that. First, the package is full of bad ideas that are unpopular with members on both sides of the aisle. Putting arbitrary deadlines on state, local, and tribal governments to start and finish complicated permit reviews under threat of an automatic construction approval is opposed across the board by the local officials who are responsible for doing the work. Other provisions would gut any local community's ability to protect historic and culturally significant sites, especially for tribal communities. And altogether, these are the kinds of ideas that sound like reform only in Washington.
Now these bills also went nowhere because they don't meaningfully address true barriers to broadband deployment that stakeholders have consistently raised with the committee for almost a decade. For instance, the partisan Republican permitting bill does not attempt to fix the instability in the market around poll attachments, nor does their legislation even make a modest investment to hire sufficient numbers of qualified staff to speed up permit reviews inside federal agencies. And this is especially disappointing given that the Biden administration did make those investments, only to have those personnel fired by Trump's political appointees. But our colleagues will sit across the room and go on about red tape as if these delays of today are not a direct result of Republican actions when, in fact, they are. Right now, broadband deployment all across the nation is being delayed by the Trump administration, and congressional Republicans are standing on the sidelines and watching it happen.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration delayed more than $42,000,000,000 in broadband funding that we passed as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law that was ready to go out to the states as part of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment or BEAD program. The administration made states go back to the drawing board on their state program plans, delaying broadband deployments. The Trump administration's new policy requires states and territories to select the cheapest bids regardless of whether those bids are the best quality or even most cost effective over time. And Republicans spent years demonizing the Biden administration for the time it took to carefully execute a massive, highly prescriptive broadband program to connect all Americans to affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet. But now, almost a year later, Republicans have not connected a single household to high-speed Internet.
In fact, the Trump administration continues to delay the program, guaranteeing that rural and low-income communities get slower and less reliable Internet service, and they're breaking the law to do that, in my opinion. And despite Republicans' ongoing sabotage of the BEAT program, House Democrats have shown time and again our commitment to the goal of ensuring everyone has access to fast, reliable, and affordable Internet service. Democrats will continue to work across the aisle to address any real structural barriers to deploying communications infrastructure across the country that we that would stand in the way of progress. Now I wanna say I support the six bipartisan bills that we'll be considering today. These bills aim to address issues that cause unnecessary delays and difficulty in the permitting process dealing with federal agencies, like updating antiquated systems and requiring standard transport fee structures across the board.
So I appreciate the fact that we have those bipartisan bills, obviously cannot support the first bill for the reason or I guess today it'll be the last bill for the reasons that I set forth, and I will have some amendments, mister chairman. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Look forward to seeing those amendments. Thank you, sir. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there any further opening statements? The chair calls up HR 13:43 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 5
HR 1343, a bill to require the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information to submit to Congress a plan for the assistant secretary to track the acceptance, processing, and disposal of certain forms.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, the bill be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition?
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in favor of HR 1343, the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act. I'm proud to lead this, what I hope will be a bipartisan and common sense bill, with my colleague, congressman Soto, to improve transparency and efficiency in the broadband deployment process. This bill, which passed unanimously on the House floor last Congress, would require the NTIA to submit a comprehensive plan to Congress detailing how it will track permit applications to deploy on federal lands. This transparency is essential to streamline the process for accessing easements and rights of way to build and maintain telecommunications infrastructure.
At the last hearing we had on this issue, we heard several detailed examples from providers across the telecommunications spectrum outlining the urgent need for this legislation. They shared repeated stories of crews that were prepared to act with infrastructure that was deployed and ready to go, only to be left waiting for permits for an extraordinary amount of time. One witness testified that more than 600 locations could not be served due to delays and permit approvals, even though everything else was ready to be deployed, forcing the providers to walk away. Another described an example in which permits have been delayed for two and a half years just to progress from one stage of the approval process to the next, and the company is still awaiting approval. These are not isolated incidents.
They are just a few examples of the many challenges providers nationwide are experiencing. Passing the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act would be a crucial step towards fixing this process and closing the digital divide, creating a more connected future for all Americans. I urge both sides of the aisle to pass this, and I am hopeful that we can go a couple of minutes without negative comments on the administration. That would be really nice in this bipartisan effort. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Are there any further discussion on this bill? For what purposes does the gentleman from Florida seek to be recognized?
Speaker 7
My dear friend, Representative Pfluger from Texas. A good bipartisan bill today, to start us off. You know, we have 42,000,000,000 to help with rural broadband. You know, these areas in my district that are ranch country. They're helping feed American places like Kenansville, Deer Park, Ehaw Junction, and more.
And, you know, we have an eleven month runway. I'm hoping we'll get this moving, because, you know, these folks have seen some utility bills going up, especially power bills. So if we can get more affordability with regard to Internet service, that would be a huge help. Areas around Central Florida like Ocala National Forest, Cape Canaveral, Avon Park Air Force Base would really benefit from making sure we're streamlining the permitting process on federal lands for these broadband applications. And so I certainly support the bill and encourage all my colleagues to vote for it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none. Let's see. Are there any amendments?
Are any.
Speaker 1
Alright. Seeing there's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the bill. Is there a request for a recorded vote? Seeing that, the clerk will call the roll.
No. We're not Voice vote.
Speaker 1
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Bill's agreed to. Sorry.
I'm a little rusty up here after 43 days in my district. The chair calls up HR 1588 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 5
HR 1588, a bill to require the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information.
Speaker 1
Without objection, first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? What purposes does the general seek recognition?
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. We need to fully realize our broadband investments. To do that, we need to make smart, thoughtful, and targeted improvements to our broadband permitting process. Modernizing these systems will ensure we have an effective, transparent, and efficient process in place to deploy broadband quickly and equitably for all Americans.
That is why I'm leading bipartisan legislation with my colleague, Congresswoman Miller-Meeks, to expedite and approve the tracking of broadband deployment on federal lands. Our facilitating digital applications act would require NTIA to report to Congress on whether the departments of Interior and Agriculture have established an online portal for the acceptance, processing, and disposal of the application form used to deploy broadband on federal property. Our bill will modernize the current system by moving the outdated paper-based form 299 process online. It directs the interior and agriculture department to create digital portals for these applications, and requires the NTIA administrator to update Congress every 60 days on progress made and obstacles encountered. By streamlining this process, our legislation aims to reduce delays at the federal level, improve transparency in applications, and accelerate the expansion of broadband and cell service, particularly in rural areas where reliable connectivity is critical for communities and where it stinks, sometimes, to be blunt.
We need a little more realism in here. It's a simple and common-sense fix. Moving from a paper-based form 299 to a modern online system is a straightforward step to bring federal permanent mermaid into the twenty-first century. It will have real impact for providers, especially smaller ones trying to expand services in rural areas. It could speed up the deployment of broadband and wireless infrastructure.
The goal of our bill is to help provide better service for people who need it the most. Rural communities have been waiting way too long for reliable cell and internet service, and this bill moves us in the right direction. Modernization of these legacy systems demonstrates both the need for and the value of reporting and oversight requirements in our Facilitating Digital Applications Act. I wanna thank my colleague, Congresswoman Miller-Leaks, for her leadership on this effort, and I look forward to working with everyone on this committee to get this bill to the House floor. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Is there any further discussion on the bill? If there's no further discussion, vote occurs on the amendment or on the HR, sorry. We've changed the format of my notes here. The question now occurs on adopting HR 1343.
All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill's adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair calls up HR 1588 and asks the clerk to report. Is that right?
Speaker 5
HR 1665, a bill to require the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to establish online portals to accept, process, and dispose of certain form 299s and for other purposes. Section one, short title. This act may be cited as the Deploying Infrastructure with Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy Applications Act or the Digital Applications Act.
Speaker 1
Objection. The first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open to amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Okay.
Question now occurs on adopting HR six. Is this the right number? Yeah. 1665. All those in favor, say.
Speaker 1
Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill's adopted and forwarded to the full committee. The chair now calls up HR 1681 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 5
HR 1681, a bill to require the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information to establish an interagency strike force to ensure that
Speaker 1
Without objection, first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill be open for amendment at any time. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? There's no further discussion. A question now occurs on adopting HR 1681.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair now calls up HR 17:31 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 5
HR 1731, a bill to amend the middle class tax relief and job creation act of 2012.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open to amendment at any point. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Mister Chair. For what purpose is the gentleman seeking recognition?
Speaker 12
I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk labeled rail_ANS. Sorry.
Speaker 1
Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. The chair calls up HR 6046 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 1
Without objection, first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any time, so ordered. Mister Chair. What purpose do gentlemen seek to be recognized?
Speaker 12
I have an amendment in the nature of a substitution at the desk labeled rail_a_n_s_01.
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6046 offered by Mister Lansman. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
Speaker 1
Objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't see Mister Joyce, but I wanna thank Mister Joyce, Mister Peters, for their work. This is a bill amending a bill that we passed in September. We worked with their teams and the committee staff to make this bill just a little bit better and a little bit more bipartisan. And so, I'm really encouraged by the work that everyone put into this.
This is the broadband and telecommunications rail act, and it will make it that much more pursuing a broadband that much faster, much more faster and less expensive. So if you remember, this goes back to the intersection between the public right of way, roads, and railroads and these tracks. And for years, laying broadband has been obstructed, delayed because these railroad companies say, well, this is our property, and so you're going to have to go through our process. And oftentimes, it's cumbersome. It is a ton of work and a ton of money.
And, again, it just leads to delays and a greater expense, for broadband providers and the folks that they serve. The changes here protect labor and ensure public safety. And so I just, again, wanna thank my colleagues for doing this and just say before I yield back that this is a moment where both sides, I believe, want to get the country building again, whether that's housing or energy or, in this case, broadband. And this bill, along with the others, will get us there. But I am grateful to my team and, mister Joyce and mister Peters for working with us, to make this bill better.
And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. I now recognize myself for five minutes to speak on HR 6046. I wanna thank my colleagues, Representative Joyce, Representative Landsman, and Representative Peters for their many months of work on this legislation. While more remains to be done, today's subcommittee markup and the aims that will be offered by Representative Landsman demonstrate our commitment to continuing working with our colleagues across the aisle ahead of a full committee markup. With that, I yield back.
Is there any other discussion on the amendment? What purpose does the gentleman for California wish to recognize?
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm also proud to co lead the Broadband and Telecommunications Rail Act with my colleagues representative Joyce and Lanzman. We have heard that when broadband companies try to build out telecommunications infrastructure along railroad crossings, costs and approval times skyrocket. And that's not acceptable. The high cost and lengthy delays are keeping our constituents from connecting to the Internet, and only furthers the digital divide in America.
To streamline the deployment process between broadband providers and railroad carriers, this bill will implement firm timelines, conflict resolution processes, and fee scales to help the Federal Communications Commission move faster in support of the public interest. It would outline the responsibilities of each party and give the FCC authority where it previously had none. So this bill solves a real problem we were facing in helping our constituents get connected to the Internet. In the age of technology, it's more important than ever for Americans to be connected as quickly as possible so they can access employment opportunities, education, and telehealth care. And by streamlining broadband deployment and speeding up access to fast, reliable, and affordable Internet connections, we can work towards bridging the digital divide, ensuring equal access to educational and economic opportunities.
So thanks again to my colleagues. I look forward to working with the subcommittee and the full committee as we move toward mark up into the floor. Appreciate the work, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Question now occurs on adopting HR 6046 as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Those all opposed, no.
The ayes have it. Bill's adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Chair calls up HR 22 89 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 1
That objection. First reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill be open for amendment at any time. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? For what purposes do gentlemen from Georgia seek to be recognized?
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2289 offered by Mister Carter of Georgia. Strike all after the enacting clause.
Speaker 1
That objection, the reading amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, I would like to thank all my colleagues for their work to lead on different solutions to lower barriers and streamline the processes for deploying broadband to all Americans. This amendment includes several provisions authored by my Republican colleagues addressing everything from duplicate or unnecessary environmental reviews, limiting unnecessary application fees, and providing certainty on the timelines for reviewing permitting requests. At our legislative hearing, we heard from experts that broadband permitting remains a barrier to closing the digital divide. Today, we are taking an important step to unleash innovation and turbocharge public and private investment.
First, my amendment would streamline the process for requesting approvals to deploy new broadband infrastructure, including wireless towers or structures, fixed broadband and fiber optic cables, and cable service provider requests. The amendment would require that application fees to review permitting applications are based on actual and direct costs, that providers receive a response within a reasonable amount of time, and that there are clear rules of the road for when these time frames begin and end. And in cases where a broadband provider thinks they were wrongfully denied the ability to provide service, they can receive relief so that they can focus their time and energy on what matters most, connecting all Americans. Second, my amendment will streamline the process for requesting approval to upgrade existing infrastructure, including adding 5G to existing 4G towers, upgrading old copper lines to fiber, or deploying Open RAN compatible technologies that will help trusted equipment vendors develop an alternative to Chinese vendors like Huawei and ZTE. These changes will help limit the environmental impact of needing new infrastructure by encouraging providers to upgrade facilities in areas that have already undergone an environmental or historical preservation review.
Finally, my amendment will ensure that environmental reviews for broadband deployments are proportional to the level of deployment taking place. In cases where broadband providers are simply upgrading infrastructures and right of ways that have already been disturbed by other communications or electric utility infrastructure. An environmental review has already been undertaken, and the land has already been disturbed. My amendment would remove the requirement to undergo these reviews where broadband infrastructure is being deployed entirely in an area for which a review has already been conducted, and infrastructure already exists. This includes waiving the environmental reviews to replace untrusted equipment that is ineligible for reimbursement under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act.
This straightforward reform will remove a key barrier to broadband deployment, especially on federal lands, where reviews can take more than two years. This amendment combines legislation led by every one of my Republican colleagues on this committee, and I would like to thank them for their thoughtful proposals to bring affordable broadband to their communities quickly and ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on more red tape. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 13
Thank you. I just wanna take a moment, mister chairman, to reflect on the timing of these discussions and this amendment. We are here in Native American Heritage Month, a time when we honor the rich history, culture, and contributions of tribal nations across the country. And yet some of these provisions in the permitting bills we are considering today, in this amendment, will allow exemptions to the National Historic Preservation Act, exemptions that could put tribal history, culture sites, and sacred lands at risk. And there is a troubling irony in that.
On one hand, you celebrate and acknowledge the tribal heritage. On the other hand, you are advancing legislation that could erode the very history we claim to honor. Streamlining processes may be important, but it cannot come at the cost of erasing history or undermining tribal sovereignty. Tribal sovereignty is not just a legal concept. It is a matter of fairness, justice, and respect for the nation-to-nation relationship that defines our country.
We cannot, in good conscience, move forward with legislation that impacts tribal lands while leaving tribal communities underfunded or stripping them of the authority to decide their own future. Honoring tribal nations means more than a post on social media recognizing the month. It means action. It means upholding their rights, respecting their history, and ensuring that federal programs are designed in partnership with, not imposed upon tribal communities. That is the measure of true progress.
And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. For what purpose is Jim from Ohio seeking to be recognized?
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for leading this essential legislation, which is an important step in ensuring that every American has access to high-speed broadband. It makes common sense reforms that will make permitting applications less costly, more timely, and more predictable, which is essential to closing the digital divide. Included in the same is my legislation, the Wireless Leadership Act, which will help expedite the deployment of wireless infrastructure. This legislation will set timelines that state and local governments must abide by when reviewing applications, and create a deemed grant remedy for reviews that miss deadlines.
It would also reduce the cost of deployment by limiting the fees that those governments can charge before reviewing applications and using the right of way. We need to make sure new networks can be built in a timely and cost-efficient manner. And broadband permitting reform is the missing piece of the puzzle to ensure that every American has access to the Internet. I'm pleased we're forwarding this legislation to the full committee, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. For what purpose do you know from California seek to be recognized?
Speaker 11
I just wanna say, I think it's unfortunate that we are bunching all of this together and don't have a discussion about it. There's much in here that I think is consistent with what I'm trying to do on energy and permit reform. And there's efforts here to reduce duplicative review. And I would just call out a few that I'm interested in. The Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act, the 3960, the Connecting Community Post Disasters Act, this 15 or 5264, the Speed for Broadband Infrastructure Act, the Trusted Broadband Networks Act, the Granite Act.
All really interesting ideas, I think, are consistent with principles that I could support. Unfortunately, because we're, I guess, jammed for time, we can't discuss these individually. We're not gonna have a discussion about those, but I do support getting rid of duplicative review. I think there's some things in this package worth supporting, but, unfortunately, it's mixed with a lot of stuff that I think I object to, and forward to working with the committee on finding those areas where we can agree and move forward. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. For what purpose, Jim from Florida seeks to be recognized.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge support for the 28th permitting reform bills we're marking up today. These bills are crucial for building commercial and federal broadband capabilities. If we want to secure our technological dominance on a global scale, we must follow through for our communications industry for national security and American families. Luckily, we've succeeded this year in a few major ways.
We've delivered a huge win to the American people with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, unleashing over 800 megahertz of spectrum and securing major tax extension benefits to assist industry in achieving these goals. However, we need to follow through on these promises by enacting permitting reform. Without permitting reform, none of the infrastructure needed to connect Floridians who have been waiting for years will be a reality. Aside from government funding, we've passed specifically for broadband programs like $42,000,000,000 for the BEAD program. One of the most prominent permitting actions we've taken was in 2018 when Congress passed the Mobile Now Act, which established a 270-day deadline for executive agencies to grant right of way or leases to install, construct, modify, maintain communications facilities on federal property.
But two hundred and seventy days seems like an exorbitant amount of time to replace critical infrastructure after a hurricane or natural disaster. My bill connecting the communities post-disaster act would help resolve these processing and permitting hurdles. It will accelerate, replacing and improving communication facilities and presidentially declared disaster areas. I'm confident we have solutions in these bills today to address the much-needed updates in our current laws on broadband infrastructure and deployment. I urge support from my colleagues on both sides to pass these critical bills, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. For what purposes is the general aid from Michigan seek to be recognized?
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very concerned about what this bill does to the national environmental policy act, NEPA. I'm a staunch defender of the environment, and many of you know how hard the man who this room is named after worked on NEPA as an original author and having it signed into law. Today, NEPA remains one of our nation's strongest tools to ensure communities have meaningful input on major federal actions. And that's why I'm deeply concerned with title three, section 301 of this amendment, which would exempt any covered project from both NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Section 301 says that any federal authorization for a covered project cannot be considered a major federal action under NEPA and cannot be considered an undertaking under NHPA. In practice, that means no environmental review and no historic preservation review, full stop. And the definition of a covered project is incredibly broad. It includes the mounting, the installation, or modification of wireless facilities, wireline deployments on existing infrastructure, small cells, and nearly all work in public rights of way. It also includes any deployment in a brownfield, which should alarm anyone whose community has ever dealt with environmental cleanups or Superfund sites, something Southeast Michigan knows too well.
These are areas where vulnerable communities already bear the brunt of pollution and climate risk. Under this legislation, broadening infrastructure in brownfields would totally bypass environmental review. Covered projects also include post-disaster rebuilds, equipment swaps, removing insecure equipment, and projects under FCC geographic licenses. Even significant modifications like antenna swaps, equipment upgrades, or expansion of existing towers are already largely exempt under the existing categorical exclusion parameters. In effect, almost every routine wireless and wireline deployment already skips any serious level of NEPA review altogether.
NEPA's director directive is straightforward. The federal government must consider how a project will affect the environment, and the people impacted should have a real chance to weigh in. That includes examining climate impacts, environmental justice concerns, and effects on culturally or historically sensitive sites. Eliminating those reviews means eliminating the voices of frontline communities, many of which have been ignored or overburdened for too long. I believe we should have bipartisan conversations about smart and targeted permitting reform.
And I've said before, I welcome an honest conversation about long term meet NEPA modernization that protects communities while allowing projects to move efficiently. But this proposal takes the wrong approach. It doesn't streamline the NEPA. It cuts it. We should not have to choose between deploying broadband and protecting bedrock environmental laws.
We can and should do both. What we cannot do is adopt exemptions that silence communities and undermine decades of environmental protection. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject these aims and oppose this legislation. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. For what purposes do gentlemen from New Jersey seek to be recognized?
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to see this committee advancing common-sense legislation to streamline and standardize permitting for critical wireless infrastructure that we all rely on. With these reforms, we can both improve inefficient processes and clear bottlenecks while respecting the rights of local, state, and federal stakeholders to make their voices heard. We also have a real opportunity to find consensus on ways to modernize and improve efficiency within federal agencies. In addition to many important measures in this markup as led by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I've introduced the enhancing administrative reviews, broadband deployment act, which will direct a review of administrative barriers, timely reviews of federal permitting applications, and to propose improvements.
This bill sits before the House Natural Resources Committee. I look forward to continuing this timely conversation on how we can drive a whole-of-government approach to improving efficiency within our government. I support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
General Lee, he's recognized for five minutes to speak only on amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna highlight the most dangerous consequences of this bill. The Republican broadband permitting bill forces state, local, and tribal governments into rigid federal deadlines called shot clocks. Miss the deadline, and the project automatically moves forward even if safety inspections, environmental reviews, or cultural protections are incomplete. Make no mistake, this is not reform.
This is a blueprint for rush decisions, unsafe construction, and communities being cut out of critical decisions that affect their broadband access and safety. Broadband deployment depends on officials who know their communities and local impacts, but this bill punishes them with rigid deadlines that ignore local realities. A county of one staff member reviewing dozens of applications, or a city managing wildfire risk and underground utilities, would have to meet the same timeline as every other community. If they can't keep up, projects move forward automatically. Before safety inspections are done, before environmental risks are reviewed, before local input is considered, that's dangerous and not the turbocharge that's needed.
For tribal nations, the stakes are even higher. They are sovereign governments. The United States has a legal and moral trust responsibility to protect their lands and resources. And this bill forces tribal governments into rigid deadlines, just as it does to states and localities. THPOs, or tribal historic preservation offices, review projects for impacts on sacred sites, cultural resources, and historic landmarks. These offices are already understaffed and underfunded by Congress, yet this bill forces them to meet impossible deadlines, leaving them no choice but to approve projects on a rush schedule or watch them automatically move forward without tribal input.
By imposing restrictive shock clocks on tribal nations and THPOs, this bill pushes tribes out of the review process, violates the federal trust, and puts tribal communities at risk. Congress could fix the real problem by fully funding THPOs, yet Republicans refuse to invest. And this is nothing new. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have consistently failed the tribal communities. As we speak, Trump's NTIA is hoarding nearly $1,000,000,000 in tribal broadband connectivity grants that Congress approved.
Funds that could connect thousands of unserved native homes. That's unacceptable. Rushing tribal consultation may satisfy the majority's political calendar, but it betrays our nation's obligations. Across the board, state, local, and tribal, these shock locks are shortcuts, not solutions. They do not build safe infrastructure.
They do not expand broadband access responsibly, and the people who will pay the price are the communities we represent. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. For what purposes do gentlemen from California seek to be recognized?
Speaker 18
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we all share a commitment to ensuring that America remains at the forefront of information technology. And as part of that mission, it is critical that we continue to support and find ways to increase Americans' access to broadband Internet. And that's a specific problem in rural parts of America, like the one that I represent. It surprises a lot of people to find out that my district has 78% of its landmass that is federal land managed by agencies like the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture.
And those are the agencies that are responsible for reviewing and approving applications to deploy broadband, and specifically broadband connectivity across federal property. But, unfortunately, those agencies have been historically very slow to approve applications for leases on the federal land. So, we here in Congress have tried to address that problem in the past by directing those agencies to develop a master contract to govern the placement of broadband infrastructure on property owned by the federal government. We've told them to use a common application form, and we've established a 270-day clock on federal agencies to process applications to place communications fill facilities on federal property. Now I wanna emphasize this because we've heard some opposition to this part of the bill today, that shot clot is not adequate.
Folks, that is already federal law, that 270 days. These agencies are already required to comply with that. But, unfortunately, there is no consequence when they fail to comply with that shot clock, and that's why this action is needed. So I wanna thank the gentleman from Georgia for including my bill in this package today, H.R. 1836, that granting remaining applications not treated effectively or delayed, or we call the granted act, which creates a deemed granted remedy for applications to place infrastructure on federal lands that remain pending after that 270 days. So, basically, we're just trying to incentivize these agencies to make sure those applications get processed in a timely manner.
And, there are exceptions for various incomplete applications and other scenarios that might hamper that effort. So, I think this is gonna meaningfully increase America's access to broadband Internet by streamlining the permitting process. This is something that's been a priority for the administration. I think it's a priority for folks in rural America, like the ones I represent. And I wanna thank you for including that in this markup today, and urge an aye vote on the underlying ANS.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Is there any further discussion on the amendment and the nature of the substitute? What is the purpose of the gentleman from Florida? No? What purpose do gentlemen from Virginia seek to be recognized?
Speaker 1
The gentleman's recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment and the nature of the substitute.
Speaker 19
Mister chairman, I appreciate it. And, I just wanna clear up a couple of things. I didn't hear anybody on the section that is included in the aims that is HR 7270, excuse me, 278. I didn't hear any objection on the fee part, and that has to be justified, of course, by the incumbent poll-holder or company. But there were real concerns that seem to indicate that the shot clock, which I'm a big fan of generally, the shot clock would force automatic approval.
That's not actually accurate. I mean, it could be if there's not a legitimate reason for turning down the application, but nothing in the bill says that a local government or other entity, state, local government, Indian nation couldn't turn down the proposal if there were legitimate health and safety concerns. And I heard somebody say that, you know, it must be approved rapidly.
Speaker 19
If there's a legitimate concern, the only thing this bill changes is that when you turn the person or the entity down to do broadband, you have to explain that in writing. So legitimate concerns, mister chairman, can be addressed because you turn them down, and then the company has the ability to go back and work on solving those health concerns, solving those issues that the local government thought were sufficient to turn them down on and resolve those and then reapply. The shock hawk, though, is to keep out some entities, and it's not a majority, mister chairman, but there are some entities that are using this as a backdoor way of denying. They just never make an answer. And you can't get a resolution to the issue if you never get an answer.
You keep it out there. You keep spending money on it. You keep hoping that something will work out. You don't have the ability to go. If there's not a reasonable concern, you don't have the ability to go and get an arbiter, an arbitrator, i.e., the court systems, to rule on whether or not it's a reasonable concern or reasonable objection.
And you're just caught in limbo, and that's the purpose of the shot clock. But I don't want anybody to think that this bill would require an approval when there are health and safety concerns, and that's why I felt compelled to speak up, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 19
I don't deny that, but there's a mechanism to make that work. And this bill does not change that. It just means you've gotta work on it in a different and faster way. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Is there any further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? What purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition?
Speaker 1
Gentlemen's recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment in nature of substitute.
Speaker 21
Thank you, chairman. I just wanna get two of the things that we're discussing today. One is conversation around efficiency. And the part that I struggle with is, like, so many of my colleagues, including my colleague from California, mister Peters, we want to engage in that conversation. We just feel that in this congress, Republicans lack the authority for efficiency.
We saw early on in this administration, Doge cut through the federal government in the idea of the advancement of efficiency, which they completely failed at. Right? We fired federal workers. We didn't make the government more efficient. Right?
The whole point of reconciliation and cutting over $880,000,000,000 from health care was fraud, waste, and abuse. But all he did was take 1 trillion dollars out of Medicaid for people across the country. That's not efficiency. And I think that there's not much credibility, which makes it hard to support the bills that we're considering today. And when you talk about a shot clock, right, and government having to act, that strikes me as really ironic considering that house leadership had us at a session for over fifty-four days.
We could have been here working on a number of issues, including the ones that are before us, but instead, House leadership chose to keep us in our district. So I just don't think there's much credibility to have this conversation, and to take your word at what these bills will achieve. And so, therefore, I'll be voting no, and I urge my colleagues as well. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek to be recognized?
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to Mister Carter for bringing this package together to modernize broadband permitting and finally get deployment moving. I'd like to highlight my own bill contained within the AINS, which is the Trusted Broadband Networks Act. Across the country, small and rural broadband providers are working to remove telecommunications equipment that the federal government has already deemed a national security risk. Providers are ready to do it, but the federal red tape is slowing them down, not for installing new equipment, but for removing the insecure equipment we've already deemed to be dangerous.
This makes no sense. If something in our networks is a known national security risk, it shouldn't take months of environmental and historic preservation paperwork to remove it. My bill cuts that delay. When a provider removes insecure equipment and replaces it with trusted equipment, federal agencies should not treat that swap as a significant federal action that triggers lengthy permitting reviews. That's it.
It's narrow. It's targeted. And it only applies to projects where equipment has been removed, and has already been flagged under federal law as insecure. This legislation is especially important in small rural networks that serve communities like those I represent in South Carolina. These providers don't have spare crews waiting around.
They're trying to comply with federal requirements and protect their customers. They should not be punished with more delays by our federal government for trying to do the right thing based on the standards that the federal government has set. Every month of delay is another month that we allow adversary-linked technology to sit in American networks. This bill puts national security ahead of bureaucracy, ensures rip and replace happens on the timeline Congress intended, and helps rural America stay connected and secure. I'm proud of this legislation.
I'm proud that it's part of this package today, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. With that, mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the amendment of nature of substitute? What purpose does general aid from Indiana seek to be recognized for?
Speaker 1
General aid is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment of nature of substitute.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mister Chairman and Ranking Member Metsui. I'm speaking today in support of my bill, which is included in the ANS, the Cable Competition Act. One of the clearest barriers to service and lower prices isn't technology, it's delay. Across Southeastern Indiana, families are frustrated by long waits for promised Internet upgrades and better service, especially when a new cable operator takes over. Consumers shouldn't have to wait months or years for the price competition and improvements they were promised.
That's what the Consumer Access to Broadband for Local Economies and Competition Act is. The Cable Competition Act fixes. It's simple, pro-consumer, and common sense. If a new operator agrees to honor the existing franchise terms, the transfer proceeds. No duplicative approvals, no moving the goalposts after investments have been committed.
This aligns with Republicans' long-standing objective of removing unreasonable barriers to broadband deployment. It doesn't spend new money or build a new bureaucracy. It simply provides clear rules and predictable timelines, so private investment can do its job. The bottom line is competition lowers prices, and certainly attracts capital. The Cable Competition Act delivers both, allowing consumers to keep the contract, cut the delays, and deliver families better service at a better price.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of a substitute, which includes my bill, the Cable Competition Act, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? For what person? General from Texas seeks recognition. Move to.
Speaker 1
last word. General's recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My bill, which is brought into this bill, the Speed for Broadband Infrastructure Act, is a very simple bill. For too long, access to high speed Internet in rural, committed communities and military bases have been held back by federal red tape. My bill streamlines the permitting, something we've all been asked to do. The permitting process so we can deliver faster, more reliable Internet access across the nation, spurring economic growth, and strengthening our national security.
And I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Is there any further discussion? For what purpose does the gentlelady from North Dakota seek recognition?
Speaker 1
Gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment nature substitute.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to speak in support of my bill, which is also part of this overall package, the Cable Expansion Act. Across rural America, providers face costly, unpredictable delays when trying to deploy or upgrade broadband infrastructure. These setbacks stall projects and widen the digital divide. For example, just last week, I was visiting with chairwoman Lana Jackson-Street of the Spirit Lake tribe.
She talked about the challenges with BI permitting delays for broadband and the impact that has on growing jobs and opportunities for her tribal members. Right now, an operator can submit an application and wait months, sometimes more than a year, without a response. There's often no firm timeline for local review, no uniform requirement for a written decision, and no guarantee that fees reflect actual direct costs. At the same time, local governments want to protect their rights and hold companies accountable. The current system isn't serving anyone.
We need a permitting process that's, one, built for modern broadband, two, preserves local authority, and three, prevents unnecessary barriers that slow down development and drive up costs. My bill, the Cable Expansion Act, strikes that balance. It streamlines the permitting process while preserving local authority over siting facilities for cable service. It establishes a responsibility to respond for franchise authorities, so applications can't be ignored indefinitely. Additionally, it sets clear timelines for decisions.
150 days for new broadband infrastructure and 90 days for upgrades to existing facilities. Those are very reasonable. If an application isn't approved or denied with written reasons within those timelines, the request is automatically deemed granted. But rest assured, folks can engage, provide the written reasons within those timelines, and be heard. This will help keep projects moving and prevent endless red tape.
Any denial must be backed by evidence made public and evaluated in a non-discriminatory manner. And lastly, it brings transparency to local fees by requiring them to be based solely on actual direct costs. Importantly, these improvements apply not only to pending applications but also retroactively. Communities that have been stuck in limbo for years can finally get answers, and get broadband infrastructure built. By creating a fair process that strengthens deployment and lowers costs, my bill will help make serious progress in closing the digital divide.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and the AINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. For what purpose does the general lady from California, the ranking member, seek recognition?
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general ladies are recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Connecting every community to affordable, high-quality broadband has to stay at the heart of this committee's work. My amendment is simple. None of the hyperpartisan Republican permitting provisions in this bill would take effect until all bid funds are released to the states and expanded. This bill is a distraction from the real roadblocks to affordable broadband deployment.
The Trump administration delays and gutting of federal broadband funding. Instead of mandating arbitrary permitting deadlines and bulldozing over local expertise, we should finish the job Congress already started and see that federal broadband dollars actually reach the communities we promise to connect. Broadband deployment experts have been clear. The main reason companies don't build in certain areas is that it's not profitable. Bead changes that by making these projects worth doing financially, not by injecting a grab bag of partisan permitting shortcuts.
Congress made a once-in-a-generation investment through Bead. States like California have spent years consulting communities, mapping gaps in coverage, and designing competitive processes so that dollars go where they are needed the most. They are ready to build. Instead of helping, President Trump's NTIA has moved the goalpost again and again. Guidance changes midstream, approvals are rescinded, and state plans are sent back to the drawing board, while Republicans look the other way and blame permitting.
That chaos has consequences. It means families go another school year without a reliable Internet. Clinics can't support telehealth. Small businesses in my district still can't compete online. In my district, local partners have trained community-based organizations to serve as digital navigators ready to help families sign up for low-cost coverage, low-cost service devices, and skills training.
But without the deployment, they're standing there with people who want to get online but have no reliable connection to offer them. Sacramento State has used a Biden-era NTIA connecting minority communities grant to help connect more than 3,000 residents. That grant ends this month. And without moving forward, vital lifelines like this just disappear, leaving communities that finally got help stranded once again. For California and other states, the Trump administration is compounding uncertainty by rescinding earlier approvals for Bead's nondeployment funds without providing clear replacement guidance, leaving states and local partners in limbo without planning, workforce, and digital inclusion investments that make networks usable on day one.
On top of that, the Trump NTIA is pressuring states to walk away from state net neutrality and affordability laws as a condition of bad funding for providers. Let me be clear. That is backwards. California fought for strong net neutrality in consumer protections because our residents demanded an open, affordable Internet. States should not be strong-armed into disregarding their consumer protection laws just to unlock federal dollars.
My amendment makes clear that we must get BEED back on track. Bead, not permitting rubber stamps, is the backbone of our national broadband strategy. It should come first, not last. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I yield back my time.
Speaker 1
General Lee yields back. The chair now recognizes me for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I wanna thank the ranking member for the spirit in which she introduced this amendment. I know she and I are both very passionate about the need to get broadband deployed and to get these bead funds out as quickly as possible. But to that point, great news.
Today, NTIA approved 18 states' final proposals. So bad funds are on the way. They're out of the door. But almost as importantly, because of innovation and efficiency, eliminating burdensome rules and regulations that were part of the bad program, the Trump administration has saved taxpayers $6,000,000,000 on just these first 18 states. So not only is the money moving, but because we got rid of burdensome regulations and requirements, it's being done much more efficiently, at a greater savings to the taxpayer.
So, you know, the purpose of these funds was to close the digital divide. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the funds for broadband deployment aren't unnecessarily delayed further by bureaucratic red tape through the permitting process. Delaying enactment of legislation that would speed up closing the digital divide until its funds to close the digital divide are dispersed is backwards in logic. The funds are being dispersed. We don't need the delay.
What we need to do is make sure as this money goes out the door that it's very, we're actually putting broadband in the ground and connecting people. And so, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. And with that, I will yield back my time. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Palome, for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know what you're saying. It's on its way and out the door, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. After years of complaining about delays to critical broadband infrastructure funding, Republicans announced sitting on the largest investment in connectivity in our nation's history, and they're sitting on it. It's not out the door.
Instead of getting these funds out the door and shovels in the ground as quickly as possible, the Trump administration is micromanaging decisions made by the state broadband offices. And some oversight, of course, is expected even if Republicans spent the last three years making bad faith characterizations about the Biden NTA doing exactly that, consistent with the law. But the problem is the current involvement is not simply oversight. The Trump administration is slowing down the program specifically to remove certain projects that will utilize more reliable broadband technologies, forcing states to scramble to find cheaper builds that use lower quality technologies and are more expensive for consumers. And there's no clear mechanism within the law that would explain this kind of behavior by the assistant secretary, as the law stipulates that all Americans be connected to broadband service using technologies that support high speeds and are scalable over time.
But based on the public comments of Secretary Lutnick, it appears that the Commerce Department and NTIA are trying to run the BEAT program using cheap technologies in an attempt to net some level of savings to return to the Treasury. And this approach also raises significant concerns about the future of the bead funds because they are specifically authorized and appropriated to cover what they call nondeployment uses. The Trump NTIA has essentially paused all work on nondeployment projects and has left states with little insight as to how their nondeployment plans will factor into their larger efforts under the B program. And nondeployment funds are a critical component of the BEAT program because they ensure that unserved and underserved communities getting this connectivity for the first time have the skills and training to adopt the service and use it safely and securely. And it should go without saying that the BEAT program, all 42,500,000,000 of it, was enacted specifically for the purposes and uses that are outlined in the law.
Nowhere in the bipartisan infrastructure law is there any allowance for the secretary of commerce or the NTIA administrator to impound BEAD funds in order to create the appearance of excess money. And that's why I support the Metsui amendment by requiring the commerce department to release all funds consistent with the bip, with the bipartisan infrastructure law. We can prevent Republicans in Washington from shortchanging rural communities who have been left behind time and time again. And there's still time to save the BEAT program from the Trump administration, which now appears on track to ruin its second broadband program in as many terms. So we look, mister chairman, we've come too far, and the stakes are too high to allow this funding to slip through our fingers now. And, frankly, that's what's happening.
It's not going out of the door. It's slipping through our fingers. So with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? What purpose does the gentleman from Louisiana seek to be recognized?
Speaker 26
We're in this committee today considering legislation to cut red tape, streamline requirements, and speed up connectivity projects. But the most significant delay in my home state of Louisiana has been the Trump administration's rewriting of policies for broadband deployment funds. I wanna thank ranking member Matt Swee for offering her amendment, which prevents the American Broadband Deployment Act from taking effect until the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has released all $42,000,000,000 in funding for the Broadband Access Equity and Access Deployment, or BEAD, program to states. This would ensure that NTIA prioritizes getting BEAD funding out as soon as possible to states, including Louisiana, and prevents any further delays from this happening. In January, Louisiana became the first state in the nation to secure federal funding for our plan to deploy $1,300,000,000 in bond funding.
The state was ready to have shovels in the ground in March. Louisiana's plan was completed under Republican governor Jeff Landry, who called this program a generational investment that will create thousands of jobs, drive billions in economic growth, and transform Louisiana's communities in all 64 parishes. Louisiana's original plan included, among other things, using $100,000,000 non-deployment funds to improve access to telehealth in rural areas with limited nearby medical facilities. These funds would have been transformative for our state, especially now as Republican big ugly law will cause more rural hospitals and clinics to close. Unfortunately, the Trump administration's overhaul of the b program has upended these years of planning, forcing states like Louisiana to scrap their work and to start all over again.
Due to the administration's changes, the rural and underserved communities still waiting for reliable Internet will be disproportionately harmed. These changes prioritize short-term cost savings and the interest of Elon Musk over durable, fee future-proof connectivity, leaving millions at risk of being locked into second-tier technologies. Louisiana now faces new procedural hurdles, and will further delay broadband expansion, forcing the state to wait again for federal approvals and hope the administration doesn't move the goalposts for this program again. The status of the state's nondeployment funding for rural telehealth and workforce development is now in jeopardy, as well as the state continues to wait for guidance from the administration. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and support this amendment.
NTIA must prioritize getting all of the BEAD funding out to states immediately. Saying that it's available and releasing it are two different things. Making sure that shovels are in the ground and people are actually working are two different things. Mister chairman and members, I implore you, please support this amendment that makes good sense, that really puts people back to work, and really does lessen the time to shorten the digital divide. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing not. Since there's no further discussion, the vote will occur on the amendment. The gentlelady has requested a roll-call vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 20
Mr Allen? Mr. Allen votes no. Mister Lotta? Mister Lotta votes no. Mister Griffith?
Mister Griffith votes no. Mister Billerakis? Mister Billerakis votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mister Dunn, Mister Dunn votes no.
Mister Fulcher, Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Kameck votes no. Mister Obernoty, Mister Obernoty votes no. Missus Houchin votes no.
Mister Fry, Mister Fry votes no. Mister Cain? Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fudorchek?
No. Missus Fudorchek votes no. Mister Guthrie? Miss Metsui? Miss Metsui votes aye.
Mister So? Mister So to votes. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes. I. Mister Ruiz?
Mr Peters? Mister Peters votes. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes. I. Miss Kelly?
Miss Barragan? Miss Barragan votes yes. Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mister Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Landsman? Mister Landsman votes aye. Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye.
Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes. I. Mister Pologne? Mister Pologne votes. Chairman Hudson?
No. Chairman Hudson votes no.
Speaker 20
Mister Guthrie is not recorded. Mister Guthrie votes no. Mister Cain is not recorded. Mister Cain votes no.
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments? For what purposes, gentlemen, New Jersey seek to be recognized?
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk titled deemed o1 or underscore o1. Clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 20
Mister chairman, could the gentleman from New Jersey please specify the amendment one more time?
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment aims to ensure permitting agencies at the federal, state, and local levels retain the authority to make decisions that best suit their needs and the needs of our communities. No matter where you go in this country, if you wanna do any type of construction, you must first get the relevant approvals from the local government. And whether you're building a house or school, or putting up utility poles or digging a trench to lay fiber, the local government has an important role to play, primarily to ensure the health and safety of the community. And that's why I'm troubled by provisions like these that enact narrow and arbitrary time frames to approve or deny applications, and then deem them granted if a decision hasn't been made by that time.
In other words, if a municipal board or town council is reviewing an application and does not issue an approval by a deadline set by the House of Representatives, the applicant's proposal would automatically be deemed approved without any further input from the community. And I'm most concerned that these provisions will ultimately raise more questions than answers, especially when it comes to liability in the case of accidents on or near job sites. My colleagues like to demonize local governments for not approving construction applications as quickly as they'd like, but anyone who served at the local level knows there's a lot more to these decisions than a simple yes or no. No one thinks about who is responsible for ensuring there's ample police or fire department personnel scheduled for traffic duty during construction, to maintain a safe environment for workers and community members alike, or the complexity of stacking or staggering certain construction projects to avoid disruptions or delays that can often occur as a result. It's the mayors and councils and planning boards and zoning boards who are responsible for answering these questions, and they are the ones on the hook if anything goes wrong or someone gets hurt.
And those of us that work closely with our mayors and councils know that they're the biggest advocates when it comes to deploying communications infrastructure in their towns. What possible advantage would come from deliberately ignoring or delaying requests to improve services for their constituents? These automatic approval provisions not only put people at risk, they restrict the ability of a town's residents from participating in an open and transparent process about important decisions in the community. So I challenge each of my colleagues to tell their mayors and local officials about this bill and these provisions the next time they go home. I encourage you as I know you would do well, I mean, obviously, you would not get a positive response.
So I'm asking you to support my amendment to strike these deemed granted provisions in the bill, and I yield back, mister chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The chair recognized himself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. I'll just remind folks we waited 3 years for bead deployment with no money going out the door. Today, 18 states' plans have been approved. The money is moving.
And with billions of dollars ready to go for broadband deployment, we have to provide accountability on agencies and certainty to providers whether or not they'll get their permits approved. Delays in the prevention process have the potential to ruin the success of connecting all Americans, and we cannot risk this money getting wasted. Here, the Democrats are seeking to strike deemed grant remedies created in this bill to ensure that state and local governments act within their review times. What's interesting is that some of the deemed grant remedies they're trying to strike were first enacted by the Democrats. Deemed grant remedies are not new.
One already exists when state and local governments fail to act on eligible facility requests within 60 days. This was enacted in a bipartisan rulemaking implemented by the Democrat FCC. Then FCC commissioner Rosenworcel and chairman Wheeler both praised the rules, as balancing the need to streamline the permitting process for the next generation of wireless technology while preserving state and local authority. Commissioner Rosenworcel speaking about the FCC order said, and I quote, that's because the rules we put in place today are our first steps to encourage deployment of infrastructure that is absolutely critical for the next generation of wireless service 5G. Chairman Wheeler speaking about the FCC order said, quote, high-speed mobile broadband also requires high-speed broadband build-out.
However, the regulatory burdens associated with deployments can be expensive and time-consuming. This order takes concrete steps to immediately and substantially ease those burdens. End quote. Mister Carter's amendment applies the same reasoning to other requests to deploy new fixed and mobile communications infrastructure. Mister Carter's amendment also broadens the deemed grants to apply to federal agencies where it is necessary in order to ensure that the timeline requirements in the infrastructure law are met and that billions of dollars are ready to be spent on deployment are not wasted. For that reason, I'll oppose this amendment, and I'll encourage my colleagues to vote no.
And with that, I yield back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Speaker 1
Okay. Seeing that the discussion has concluded, we will move directly to a vote. A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 20
Mister Allen? Yep. Mr. Allen votes no. Mister Lotta votes no. Mister Griffith?
Mister Griffith votes no. Mister Billerakis? Mister Billerakis votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.
Mister Dunn? Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr. Fulcher? Mr. Fulcher votes no. Mister Pfluger?
Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes no. Mister Obernoty? Mister Obernotti votes no.
Missus Houchin? Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes no. Mister Cain? Mister Cain votes no.
Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak? Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Guthrie?
Mister Guthrie votes no. Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye.
Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters?
Mr. Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Paragon?
Miss Paragon votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mister Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye.
Mister Landsman? Mister Landsman votes aye. Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye. Miss Castor?
Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Polon? Aye. Mister Polon votes aye. Chairman Hudson?
No. Chairman Hudson votes no. How's Miss Houchin recorded? Missus Houchin is not recorded. Missus Houchin votes no.
Speaker 1
Amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments? What purpose does general aid from Virginia seek to be recognized for?
Speaker 1
Objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would ensure that our state and local governments have the capacity and the federal support necessary to comply with this bill. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues just voted against removing the automatic approval provisions in the amendment we just considered. But perhaps this can be a compromise that helps our state and local partners to be able to comply with the bill. Otherwise, the bill just amounts to a set of unfunded mandates.
Everyone on the committee wants to improve access to broadband by making common-sense permitting reforms, something we saw reflected in the bipartisan measures we adopted earlier today. However, this bill could do just the opposite by imposing strict shortened shot clocks on state and local permitting authorities, which in most cases lack the staff or capacity to process applications at the speed required by this bill. As we discussed, under the bill, if a local permitting authority is unable to complete its review within the shortened deadline, the application is automatically approved. And the project can move forward without a thorough review, without proper coordination, and without meaningful community input. As we have heard from several witnesses in recent years, most of the areas that still need to be connected to broadband are rural communities, and many of these communities operate with extremely limited permitting personnel.
These offices are also juggling reviews for transportation, utilities, housing, community development, economic development projects, and other critical infrastructure. And these localities now have additional burdens imposed on them from the big ugly bill that they need to deal with as well. By layering on a new truncated deadline for broadband permits without any federal support, we will effectively force local governments to stretch their already strained resources even further. And so this amendment says, if Congress is going to impose expedited permitting requirements, we should also provide the necessary funding to that state and local government so they're not put in an impossible situation where automatic approvals occur because they lack the resources to keep up, or they're much more likely to just reject the application outright rather than work to approve it and work on defect deficiencies to approve it. Let's not set our communities up for failure.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The chair will now recognize himself for five minutes to speak on the amendment. Listen. State and local governments have never had more money that they can use to be prepared for broadband deployment than they do right now. State and local governments across the country have received hundreds of billions of dollars over the last 5 years.
For example, the infrastructure law provided states with millions of dollars in planning grants to prepare for administering the BEAD program. Every single state has received planning grants from the NTIA. Additionally, states have stood up broadband offices and hired the necessary staff. This amendment simply requires state and local governments to respond to permitting requests in a timely manner. While there may be complicated cases that require more time to review, broadband providers work with local governments ahead of time, ahead of submitting these applications, to ensure their applications have a high likelihood of success.
And so, for that reason, I will oppose this amendment. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment.
Would you like to be recorded? Yeah. Recorded, the vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 20
Mister Allen votes no. Mister Lotta votes no. Mister Griffith, Mister Griffith votes no. Mister Bilaracus votes no. Mister Carter of Georgia, mister Dunn, mister Dunn votes no.
Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Pfluger? Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes no.
Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernotti votes no. Missus Houchin? Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes no.
Mister Cain? Mr. Cain votes no. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak?
Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Guthrie? Mister Guthrie votes no. Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes aye.
Mister So? Aye. Mister So votes aye. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye.
Mister Ruiz? Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters? Mr. Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle?
Missus Dingle votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Baragan? Miss Baragan votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana?
Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Landman? Mr. Landman votes aye.
Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Pologne?
Mister Pologne votes aye. Chairman Hudson? No. Chairman Hudson votes no. How's Miss Houchin recorded?
Miss Hauchin is not recorded. Miss Hauchin votes no. Mr. Carter recorded. Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments? For what purposes does the gentleman from California seek recognition?
Speaker 13
Mister chairman, I have an amendment to the AINs at the desk labeled TBCP funds 101.
Speaker 20
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2289. Strike title three. Add at the end the following.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, offer an amendment grounded in two core principles: fairness and respect for tribal sovereignty. My amendment will ensure that grant funding promised to tribal nations under the tribal broadband connectivity program is distributed in full by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, before the provisions in this bill may take effect. Across our country, tribal nations have long faced systemic barriers to resources that are essential for their communities to thrive. This became especially apparent during the COVID pandemic, prompting Congress to establish the tribal broadband connectivity program.
Over recent years, NTIA awarded this critical funding to tribes to close the digital divide, but too much of this funding has not been allocated. For too many tribal communities, the promise of federal support is still just that, a promise. Adding to the concern, just last week, NTIA announced new guidance for the tribal broadband connectivity program, pausing the remaining grants until the Broadband Equity Access Deployment Program or BEADS plan is approved and underway. This delay is unacceptable, but making matters worse is NTIA's intention to hold the funding hostage until tribes give their consent to BEADS plans, whether they support them or not. The reality is tribal nations have been left out of many of the deliberations around Bead in the last year, so they rightfully have questions and concerns about how Bead will support connectivity on tribal lands.
We should call this out for what it is, an attempt by the Trump administration to coerce tribal nations to give consent in the BEAD program to deployment plans they might otherwise reject, to access the funding they were promised. This is a direct threat to tribal autonomy. Tribal governments have the sovereign right to make decisions about infrastructure on their lands. Federal mandates cannot override that authority. And we must not forget many of the provisions and the permitting bills being considered today would allow exemptions to the National Historic Preservation Act, putting tribal history, cultural sites, and sacred lands further at risk.
Streamlining may be important, but it cannot come at the cost of erasing history and undermining tribal sovereignty. This amendment is not about slowing progress. It is about ensuring that progress is just, equitable, and respectful. It ensures that tribal communities receive the resources promised to them, and that they retain the authority to chart their own development process. Today, alongside Senator Schiff, I introduced the Tribal Internet Expansion Act of 2025, which explicitly recognizes tribal nations as high cost areas, securing them a place in broadband expansion efforts.
My amendment complements that work by ensuring that funding is delivered and that tribal voices' priorities are respected. Tribal sovereignty is not just a legal concept. It is a matter of fairness, justice, and respect for the nation-to-nation relationship that defines our country. We cannot move forward with legislation that impacts tribal lands while leaving tribal communities underfunded or stripping them of their authority to decide their own future. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment. I appreciate my colleagues introducing this amendment. I appreciate him elevating the issue of tribal lands. My state, like your state, has a rich tribal history, and we're proud of that.
And so the issue you raise is important. But what’s important to understand here is that we're not eliminating all these review processes. What we're doing is streamlining these processes so they're not duplicative. And look that folks in travel lands need access to broadband just as much as anywhere else, and these permitting delays are a significant barrier to broadband deployment. In some instances, multiple months or even years to complete, and costing millions of extra dollars.
This provision would gut the needed permitting reforms and further prolong the digital divide. And so, for that reason, I'm gonna urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Any further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment.
A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 20
Mr. Allen? No. Mr. Allen votes no. Mister Lotta? Mister Lotta votes no.
Mr. Griffith? Mister Griffith votes no. Mister Bilaracus? Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.
Mister Dunn? Mr Dunn votes no. Mister Fulcher? Mister Pfluger? Mister Pfluger votes no.
Missus Kameck? Missus Kameck votes no. Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernotti votes no. Missus Houchin, mister Fry, mister Fry votes no.
Mister Cain, Mister Cain votes no. Mister Goldman, Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Guthrie? Mister Guthrie votes no.
Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye. Miss Clark?
Miss Clark votes aye. Miss Ruiz? Miss Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters? Mr. Peters votes aye.
Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Paragon? Miss Paragon votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Landsman? Mister Landsman votes aye.
Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Polon?
Mister Polon votes aye. Chairman Hudson? Chairman Hudson votes no.
Speaker 20
Is Mister Bilarakis recorded? Mister Bilarakis is not recorded. Mister Bilarakis votes no. Mister Fulcher, how are you recording? Mister Fulcher votes no.
Speaker 20
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2289. Page 35, after line 10, insert the following and redesignate Objection.
Speaker 3
The reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment recognizes that access to reliable, high-speed Internet is essential in our increasingly digital society. It seeks to balance the benefits the majority is attempting to hand out to providers with obligations to ensure that no community, no family is left behind when infrastructure is being deployed. And I wanna make very clear at the outset of my remarks, despite what you hear from my Republican colleagues, the group of partisan bills considered today will do very little, if anything, to encourage broadband infrastructure investment and deployment, particularly as the current administration has systematically dismantled historic bipartisan legislative efforts to close the digital divide. In fact, when all is said and done, I'm confident that this administration, with the approval of my Republican colleagues, will have done more to actively worsen the digital divide than any previous administration.
From delaying then kneecapping the broadband program and attacking affordable efforts to illegally withholding digital equity act funding and tribal connectivity dollars, Republicans seem to be on a mission to make sure that some communities stay offline, maybe for good. Talking about these meager permitting ideas at this moment in time is as insufficient as holding up a cocktail umbrella in the middle of a hurricane. However, turning to my amendment, I believe efforts to streamline broadband deployment should be balanced with our desire to ensure that low income and minority communities who have been subjected to both traditional and digital redlining in the past do not continue to be left behind. The truth is that many of the communities that were impacted by redlining decades ago, who were discriminated against when seeking to apply for mortgage loans, continue to suffer with inferior infrastructure and services today, including broadband. And many will face a form of redlining once again as their dollars will be shifted from real fiber infrastructure to untested satellite service.
Unfortunately, I've heard clearly in hearings over the years from our expert witnesses that previous deregulatory efforts did nothing to mitigate the digital redlining we see today. In fact, they may have made it worse. Instead, previous efforts, quote, streamline, unquote, simply allow providers to perpetuate historic discrimination against certain communities while facilitating build out to wealthier communities where they could make more money. My amendment would ensure that this current round of, quote, streamlining, end quote, doesn't become yet another giveaway to providers seeking to pad their bottom line. Instead, my amendment would allow providers to take advantage of the streamlined process that the majority is proposing, but only if they commit to serving every household in the jurisdiction granting their permit.
This would help urban, rural, and suburban communities. Without such an obligation, history is doomed to repeat itself, and certain communities will remain disconnected. As such, our goals of getting affordable, reliable broadband to every area of this community, goals that my colleagues across the aisle purport to share, will be perpetually frustrated. In theory, I do not oppose working with my colleagues on this committee to explore pathways to equitable, streamline permitting processes and bridge the digital divide. So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
The chair recognizes himself for five minutes in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the gentlelady's offer to work together, but we've been working at this for some time. If Democrats wanted to have a conversation about serving unserved areas, we would have welcomed it. Unfortunately, this amendment is poorly drafted. Rather than double down on encouraging investment so that all Americans can be served, this amendment could have the opposite effect.
This amendment could also lead to less competition in the marketplace if one provider is required to serve all locations, even if another provider could serve some locations more efficiently. I urge a no vote on this amendment, and I yield back. Are there any other comments on the amendment? Hearing none, you want a roll call? Okay.
Alright. The clerk will call the roll. Mr Allen? No.
Speaker 20
Mr. Allen votes no. Mister Lotta? Sir Lotta votes no. Mister Griffith, sir, Griffith votes no. Mister Bilaracus, Mister Carter of Georgia.
Mr Dunn. Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Pfluger? Mister Pfluger votes no.
Missus Kameck? No. Missus Kameck votes no. Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernotti votes no.
Missus Houchin? Mr Fry? Mister Kane? Mister Kane votes no. Mister Goldman?
Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak? Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Guthrie? Mister Guthrie votes no.
Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye. Miss Clark?
Miss Clark votes aye. Miss Ruiz? Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters? Mr. Peters votes aye.
Mrs Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Bettergan, Miss Bettergan votes I. Mister Carter of Louisiana, mister Menendez, mister Menendez votes I.
Mister Landsman, mister Landsman votes I. Miss McClellan votes I. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes. I. Mister Polon?
Mister Polon votes. Chairman Hudson?
Speaker 3
I'm sorry. We've already closed the boat, Mr. Garden. Alright. With the clerk, okay. The amendment is not agreed to, or are there further amendments?
That's it?
Speaker 3
And this is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. So, again, all those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And the amendment.
Speaker 3
The amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on adopting HR 2289 as amended. All those in favor, say aye. I want a roll call. Roll call.
Roll call. Okay. A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk called the roll.
Speaker 20
Mister Allen? Aye. Mr. Allen votes aye. Mister Lotta? Mister Griffith?
Yes. Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Billerakis? Mister Billarakis votes aye. Mister Carter of Georgia?
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr Dunn? Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes aye.
Mister Pfluger? Mister Pfluger votes aye. Missus Kamick? Aye. Missus Kamick votes aye.
Mister Obernoty? Mister Obernotti votes aye. Missus Houchin? Mr Fry? Mr Cain?
Mr. Cain votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes yes. Missus Vadorcek? Missus Vadorcek votes I.
Mister Guthrie? Mister Guthrie votes. I Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes no. Mister So?
Mister So to vote no. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes no. Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes no.
Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes no. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes no. Miss Kelly?
Miss Bettergan? Miss Bettergan votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mister Menendez, Mister Menendez votes no. Mister Landsman, Mister Landsman votes no.
Miss McClellan votes no. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes no. Mister Pologne? Mister Pologne votes no.
Chairman Hudson?
Speaker 20
Mister Houchin is not recorded. Missus Houchin votes aye. Has Mister Fry recorded? Fry is not recorded. Aye.
Mister Fry votes aye.
Speaker 20
Mister So to's recorded as no. Okay. Anybody else? I can't read your name. Okay.
Speaker 3
The clerk will report the clerk will call the roll. He just called. We'll report.
Speaker 3
Okay. The A's have it. The bill is adopted and forwarded to the full committee. Yes, ma'am. Okay.
Without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered. Chair, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.