[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 172 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7324-S7326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO REGULATING THE INTERNET AND BROADBAND
INDUSTRY PRACTICES--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 6, which the
clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the consideration of the joint
resolution (S.J. Res. 6) disapproving the rule submitted by
the Federal Communications Commission with respect to
regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Under the previous order, there
will be 5 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or
their designees.
Who yields time? If no one yields time, time will be charged equally
to both sides.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, a bedrock principle of the Internet is
that consumers should be able to access the lawful Internet content of
their choice without service providers discriminating based on the
source of the content. This has allowed the online marketplace to
evolve into the vibrant and competitive system that we are all
accustomed to today. Last December, the Federal Communications
Commission took action to promulgate ``network neutrality'' rules,
which are set to go into effect later this month. These are rules that
will create transparency and foster competition. I oppose the
resolution being considered by the Senate today that disapproves of the
Commission's actions in this area.
Many Americans have either no choice or a limited choice of broadband
service providers. This is particularly true in rural areas like
Vermont. This lack of competition in the market raises the threat of
providers discriminating against certain lawful Web sites and Internet
content. Net neutrality rules are crucial in ensuring that the Internet
remains the ultimate free marketplace of ideas, where better products
or services succeed on their own merits and not based on special
financial relationships with providers.
Congress and the executive branch must take steps to ensure that
competition on the Internet is vibrant. This has taken on new
importance as the Internet has become increasingly central to our
lives. The online marketplace is going to be a key driver of the 21st
century economy, and implementing net neutrality rules now, while it is
still growing, will ensure that the online marketplace will continue to
be dynamic well into the future.
The Judiciary Committee held hearings on this issue several years
ago, and it is an issue in which I have been interested. I was an
original cosponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act in both the
109th and 110th Congresses. That bill would have gone even further to
preserve an open Internet than the actions taken by the FCC last year.
I will remain a strong supporter of strong and responsible net
neutrality regulations in the Senate, and I oppose the resolution being
considered today.
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 6,
the FCC Internet and broadband resolution of disapproval. There are so
many reasons to support this resolution and oppose the FCC's rulemaking
on net neutrality.
I could focus on regulatory overreach, the lack of cost-benefit
analysis to justify this rulemaking, consistent court rulings showing
the lack of FCC legal authority to implement net neutrality or even the
aggressive nature of this administration to regulate at all costs.
However, today I would like to talk about the most important reason
to support this Resolution in opposition of net neutrality--jobs.
Last year, the telecommunications industry invested over $65 billion
in our domestic economy. These billions of dollars go toward
infrastructure, network expansion, and continual upgrades, all of which
will drive job creation in a growth sector. For every billion dollars
invested, there is a direct correlation to 3,400 created jobs.
What is at stake in this debate is nothing more than the government
trying to take over the Internet in a misguided attempt to regulate a
dynamic industry into a static platform. This approach will stifle
innovation.
If companies are devoting $65 billion a year to building out their
networks, but do not have the ability to control and manage their
investments, then they are going to stop investing tens of billions of
dollars into their product. It really is that simple. No company is
going to continue to invest at such a fast rate if they will be forced
to cede partial control over to government regulators.
In a down-economy, telecommunications has been one of the few bright
spots. Why? Because of a light-touch, hands-off regulatory approach.
Now the FCC is pursuing a political agenda by attempting to undermine
the industry. The FCC has not won in the courts or through the
legislative process in Congress, so it has resorted to expanding the
regulatory process.
According to a 2010 study entitled ``The Economic Impact of Broadband
Investment,'' 434,000 jobs have been created in the broadband industry
in the past decade, and in the next 5 years, we can expect over 500,000
additional jobs to be created.
To help protect these jobs, we must stop this government over-reach.
IT investment accounts for 47 percent of all U.S. nonstructural
investment and as I mentioned, the job creation from this is a bright
spot in our economy. We must continue the hands-off approach
[[Page S7325]]
that results in job creation and allows our companies--big, small and
everything in between--to do what they do best: innovate, invest in the
future, and create jobs.
We need to support policies that encourage investment in tomorrow's
technologies, not hamper innovation. According to the FCC's own
National Broadband Plan, in 2003 only 15 percent of Americans had
access to broadband. Today that number is 96 percent, and we cannot
stop until we have 100 percent market-saturation. Parts of northern New
Hampshire are included in this remaining 4 percent, so to get the rest
of my state, and our great country, access to broadband, we must have
policies that encourage private-sector investment and growth.
We have heard it said many times, but it is worth repeating: net
neutrality is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.
There is no market failure and no justifiable reason to impose such
onerous regulations. Quite the contrary--competition is at an all-time
high in the telecommunications and broadband industry. Since the
Internet was privatized in 1994, there has been a steady movement away
from government control and roadblocks.
As FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell pointed out in his December 2010
dissent to the FCC's rulemaking on net neutrality, there are fewer than
a handful of cases of alleged misconduct by an Internet service
provider, and each of those cases was resolved by the courts in favor
of the consumer. So as you can see, the consumer is well-protected by
the existing system and does not need the heavy-hand of the government
inserting itself with more regulations.
The White House this week issued a veto threat for this resolution.
However, in doing so it made our point for us. The White House says it
would be ``ill-advised to threaten the very foundation of innovation in
the Internet economy'' but then says we need to keep the Internet
``free and open.'' Well I have news for the White House--the Internet
is free and open. I sent a letter, along with 10 of my Senate Commerce
Committee Republicans to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowki a couple of
months ago asking him to provide a market justification and cost/
benefit analysis for imposing net neutrality regulations. In his
response, he could not cite any examples of market failure to justify
such a rash rulemaking. Why? Because no rationale exists. There is no
market failure.
I fear that if net neutrality were to become law, we would be taking
an irreversible step backwards at a time when our economy needs it
least.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and say no to
government attempting to take over the Internet.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will oppose the motion to proceed to
S.J. Res. 6 a joint resolution of disapproval of the FCC rule regarding
net neutrality.
This resolution of disapproval would overturn the FCC's rule that
would codify and supplement existing Internet openness principles while
maintaining the ability of Internet service providers to engage in
reasonable network management. The rules would prohibit Internet access
providers from preventing its users from sending or receiving lawful
content over the Internet; prohibit Internet access providers from
preventing users from connecting lawful devices to the network; and
would require Internet access providers to treat lawful content,
applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner. It also
included additional provisions that will create an Open Internet
Advisory Committee to assess and report to the FCC on developments in
mobile broadband.
The Internet has become an indispensable tool that has spurred
innovation, provided virtually unlimited access to information and
commerce, and increased communication through Web sites, e-mail, and
blogs. It has become difficult to imagine life without the Internet, a
system both open and unrestricted.
The Internet plays a critical role in our society because it provides
an equal platform for all users, allowing for the free exchange of
ideas and information. It is important that the Internet remain free
and open and not risk becoming a system with limited access for some of
the smaller Web sites and their users.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, over the past 20 years, the Internet
has grown and flourished without burdensome regulations from
Washington. With the strength of free market forces behind it, the
Internet has been an open platform for innovation. It has spurred
business development, much needed job creation, millions of jobs in
fact. If we are going to keep an open and free Internet and keep the
jobs it spawns, we should reject the FCC regulation on net neutrality.
The FCC reversed its successful hands-off approach last December by
passing net neutrality rules where the FCC has essentially granted
itself power over all forms of communication, including the Internet.
Congress did not explicitly delegate this authority to the FCC, and it
is our responsibility to hold on to the power that only we authorize
regulations where they are needed. Unelected agencies do not get to
decide on their own that something needs to be done that Congress has
not, in its congressional and constitutional responsibility, decided is
necessary.
These regulations on broadband providers establish the FCC as the
Internet's gatekeeper--a role for which government is not really suited
when innovation could be stifled. Instead of spending their resources
on new job-creating investments, on new products, on new services,
Internet providers are going to have to spend money on lawyers and
lobbyists to comply with and go through the processes the FCC will
require. Congress has never given the FCC this authority.
Regulators and bureaucrats all across the government are overstepping
their bounds in many areas--the NMB, the NLRB, the EPA--and it is time
for Congress to push back, and we can do it today. Regulators should
not regulate without the explicit authority of Congress. The court said
so in the Comcast case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, the success of the Internet should
not be tampered with. We need to pass S.J. Res. 6 that is before us
today.
Madam President, have the yeas and nays been called for?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, what about our second vote on the
other Congressional Review Act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will take consent, to order the yeas and
nays.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask for the yeas and nays on that as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to ordering the yeas and
nays? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient
second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
proceed.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
[[Page S7326]]
NAYS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
McCain
The motion was rejected.
____________________