[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6081-S6082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
        Coburn, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 3624. A bill to encourage continued investment and innovation in 
communications networks by establishing a new, competition analysis-
based regulatory framework for the Federal Communications Commission; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from 
South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint, in introducing the Freedom for 
Consumer Choice Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this 
legislation, which would require the Federal Communications Commission, 
FCC, to prove that consumers are being harmed by the lack of choice 
before it imposes new regulations.
  Specifically, the proposed bill would require the FCC to weigh the 
potential cost of action against any benefits based on a showing of 
clear and convincing evidence that marketplace competition is not 
sufficient to adequately protect consumer welfare, and an act or 
practice is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. I believe 
this framework, along with a 5-year sunset on any regulation, would 
foster a vibrant market for Internet services and content. This 
legislation is necessary to combat the FCC's latest assault on the 
Internet.
  In April, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 
that the FCC had stepped beyond its authority by regulating the 
Internet with so-called ``net neutrality'' rules. Yet, it seems the FCC 
just will not take no for an answer. Just over a month after the 
appeals court ruled it had overstepped its bounds, the FCC sought to 
re-categorize broadband services in an effort to more actively regulate 
the Internet and to establish a set of net neutrality principles. This 
regulatory overreach could jeopardize hundreds of billions of dollars 
in investment and accompanying hundreds of thousands of jobs that have 
resulted from an Internet governed by competition.
  The only reason the FCC Chairman and his colleagues are taking this 
path is because there is no way they can get far-reaching and costly 
net neutrality legislation through Congress. In fact it was recently 
reported that 282 Members of Congress, including 74 Democrats, asked 
the FCC to drop its plans to reclassify broadband. Enough is enough. 
The Government needs to keep its hands off the Internet so it can 
prosper and grow, benefiting consumers and our economy alike.
  Net neutrality may sound like fairness but it is actually the 
opposite. Bandwidth is finite, like the finite number of lanes on a 
highway, and network providers must innovate in order to accommodate 
the burgeoning traffic. If the FCC takes control of the Internet, we 
will have the inevitable result of all poorly designed regulations: 
business decisions prejudiced by politicians and political decisions 
prejudiced by corporations. The Internet is about the most competitive, 
efficient and consumer-driven industry in the global economy. There is 
a time and

[[Page S6082]]

place for federal economic regulation, but during a recession is not 
the time, and the Internet is certainly not the place.
  Let me conclude my remarks by pointing out that the Freedom for 
Consumer Choice Act is intended as a starting point for this debate. No 
doubt further refinements will be made to this bill during the 
legislative process. I am committed to moving this legislation forward 
and hope that my colleagues can join efforts to refine and enact this 
important bill.
                                 ______