[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 20, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3168-S3169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NET NEUTRALITY

  Mr. SANDERS. I apologize to my friend from South Carolina.
  Mr. President, I want to talk about an issue that millions and 
millions of people all over this country are increasingly concerned 
about; that is, last week the FCC, the Federal Communications 
Commission, released a proposal in response to a recent Federal court 
decision that struck down the Commission's 2010 Open Internet Order. 
The proposal would, for the very first time, allow Internet service 
providers to be able to pay for priority treatment.
  What this means, in point of fact, is the end of net neutrality and 
the end of the Internet as we know it. What net neutrality means is 
that everyone in our country--and, in fact, the world--has the same 
access to the same information. Whether you are a mom-and-pop store in 
Hardwick, VT, or whether you are Walmart, the largest private 
corporation in America, you should have the same access to your 
customers.
  Net neutrality also means that a blogger, somebody who just blogs out 
his or her point of view, in a small town in America should have the 
same access to his or her readers as the New York Times or the 
Washington Post.
  If the FCC allows huge corporations to negotiate ``fast-lane deals,'' 
then the Internet will eventually be sold to the highest bidder. 
Companies with the money will have the access and small businesses will 
be treated as second- or third-class citizens. This is grotesquely 
unfair and this will be a disaster for our economy and for small 
businesses all across our country.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank Commissioners Clyburn and 
Rosenworcel for their strong support of net neutrality. They are doing 
exactly what the American people want from the Commission. During last 
week's hearing Commissioner Rosenworcel stated:

       We cannot have a two-tiered Internet, with fast lanes that 
     speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us 
     lagging behind.

  Commissioner Clyburn noted:

       [The] free and open exchange of ideas is critical to a 
     democratic society.

  And she is, of course, absolutely right.
  I have to say--and I don't mean to be particularly partisan on this 
issue, but the facts are the facts--that in contrast, the Republican 
Commissioners, Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly, would like to completely 
deregulate the Internet. Commissioner O'Reilly said, in response to the 
proposal:

       As I've said before, the premise for imposing net 
     neutrality rules is fundamentally flawed and rests on a 
     faulty foundation of make-believe statutory authority. I have 
     serious concerns that this ill-advised item will create 
     damaging uncertainty and head the Commission down a slippery 
     slope of regulation.

  That is Republican Commissioner O'Reilly.
  What does all of this mean in English? What it means is that when we 
talk about deregulating the Internet, we are talking about allowing 
money--big money--to talk, and allowing the big-money interests to once 
again get their way in Washington. That is very wrong. We cannot allow 
our democracy to once again be sold to the highest bidder.
  I think all of us agree the Internet has been an enormous success in 
fostering innovation and enabling free and open speech across the 
country and throughout the world. We kind of take it for granted. But 
when the Presiding Officer and I were growing up, there was no 
Internet, and I think we can all acknowledge now what a huge advance it 
has been for business and for general communication. Unfortunately, 
these Republican Commissioners on the FCC want to fix a problem that 
does not exist. What they want is to change the fundamental 
architecture of the Internet to remove the neutrality that has been in 
place for decades--since the inception of the Internet--and to allow 
big corporations to control content online.
  Let me say the American people--people in Vermont and across this

[[Page S3169]]

country--care very deeply about this issue. A little while ago, in 
advance of the FCC's vote, on the Internet I asked people in Vermont 
and throughout the country to share their views with me, to write to me 
and tell me what they thought about the attempt to do away with net 
neutrality, and I was blown away by the response we received. More than 
19,000 people have submitted comments to my office so far, and what 
they are saying in statement after statement after statement is that 
the FCC has to defend net neutrality.
  I think these 19,000 people represent the vast majority of the people 
in this country who understand how important net neutrality is, and I 
want to take this opportunity and a very few moments to share some of 
the comments I received through my Web site.
  Anthony Drake of Moreno Valley, CA, said:

       Net neutrality is vital for a free and open internet, and 
     the economic advantages that it has brought our nation and 
     the world. Please work to reclassify ISPs as common carriers 
     under Title II of the Communications Act.

  Stamford, VT, resident Roy Gibson concurred, telling the FCC that 
Internet providers ``should be treated like utilities.'' I agree with 
Roy Gibson.
  Reg Jones of Bennington, VT, said President Obama must uphold his 
campaign promise to enforce net neutrality. He further said:

       Net neutrality should be mandated as President Obama 
     promised. Any attempt to allow differential speeds and access 
     to the Internet should be squashed and those who propose it 
     should be replaced by people who represent all of the 
     citizens of this country. Internet access should be for the 
     good of all, not for the select few who already have too much 
     power and more money than they need.

  William LaFrana of Versailles, KY, said:

       Everyone should have equal access to the Internet. The 
     Internet was developed with taxpayer funding, and should not 
     be held hostage to corporate piracy.

  Patricia Moriarty from Harwich Point, MA, wrote:

       The Internet is the only place where we truly have freedom 
     of speech and the ability to freely exchange new ideas around 
     the world. Leave the Internet OPEN.

  President Obama himself has long been on record supporting net 
neutrality. In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama said:

       What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says that the 
     servers and the various portals through which you're getting 
     information over the Internet should be able to be 
     gatekeepers and to charge differential rates to different Web 
     sites . . . so you can get much better quality from the Fox 
     News site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom 
     and pop sites. . . . And that I think destroys one of the 
     best things about the Internet--which is that there is this 
     incredible equality there.

  That is what Barack Obama said when he was campaigning for the 
Presidency. Barack Obama was right when he said that, and I would very 
strongly urge the President to stand for what he said when he was 
campaigning for President and defend net neutrality.
  I understand the FCC is an independent body, but the American people 
have spoken with a clear and unified voice that they want to maintain 
net neutrality. What is so frustrating for the American people is to 
elect a candidate--in this case President Obama--who campaigned on an 
issue and now see many of the FCC members he appointed moving in a 
different direction. It is simply not enough for the President to sit 
on the sidelines on this issue. We need him to speak out for net 
neutrality, as he did when he campaigned for President.
  Let me conclude by simply saying the Commission will soon consider 
whether to reclassify the Internet as a so-called common carrier. Under 
this distinction, the Internet would be treated like other utilities. 
Being classified as a common carrier will mean Internet service 
providers must provide the same service to everyone, without 
discrimination. This is the only path forward to maintain an open 
forum, free of discrimination.
  Over the next few months the public will have an opportunity to weigh 
in on this proposal by the FCC. Each of us--and I hope every Member of 
Congress--should be concerned about this issue. I encourage you to be 
vocal. If people want to write to my office--sanders.senate.gov--we 
already have 19,000 people commenting and we welcome even more. I hope 
the American people rally around this issue of net neutrality and that 
we defeat any proposal to do away with that.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson and Ms. Collins pertaining to the 
introduction of (S. 2361) are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  (The remarks of Mr. Levin pertaining to the introduction of S. 2360 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________