[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.

                          ____________________