[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 86 (Thursday, May 18, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3028-S3029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              The Internet

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the internet worked great in 2014 when 
there were no Federal net neutrality rules. Truth be told, even after 
the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission applied depression-era 
phone monopoly regulations to broadband in 2015, most Americans saw 
little or no difference in their internet experience. The internet 
still creates jobs, expands educational opportunities, keeps us in 
touch with loved ones, and, as a bonus, it is often entertaining.
  This internet that we know and love isn't going to fall apart anytime 
soon, no matter what the FCC decides. But there are important policy 
questions that need to be answered about how the internet will grow and 
develop into the future. Let's put the apocalyptic rhetoric and 
fearmongering aside.
  The internet doesn't belong just to Republicans, Democrats, big 
Silicon Valley tech companies, internet service providers, small 
Silicon Prairie startups, or the Federal Government. It belongs to 
everyone. It is global. It is best when it is free and open.
  Today, as the FCC reconsiders the flawed broadband regulations it 
issued only 2 years ago, Congress should look back at the path that we 
could have taken but didn't. In November of 2014, I offered former FCC 
Chairman Tom Wheeler an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to 
come together to craft a permanent legislative solution banning 
controversial practices known as blocking, throttling, and paid 
prioritization of internet traffic. With colleagues in the House of 
Representatives, I even put forward a draft bill doing exactly that. It 
wasn't a final offer but, rather, an outreach to get the conversation 
started. I thought the time and opportunity to protect the open 
internet on a bipartisan basis had arrived. Through bipartisan 
legislation, I believed Congress should put into statute widely 
accepted principles of network management, commonly referred to as 
``net neutrality.''
  Our idea for legislation was straightforward: Combine protections 
ensuring that owners of broadband infrastructure can't use their role 
to manipulate the user experience with those guaranteeing a 
continuation of the light-touch regulatory policies that helped the 
internet thrive for two decades.
  But Chairman Wheeler rejected our idea for bipartisan legislation. 
Instead, he and his staff lobbied to block such discussions from even 
happening in Congress. He then, with only partisan support, issued an 
order that gave the FCC authority to regulate the internet under old 
laws designed for phone monopolies and eliminated all the authority the 
Federal Trade Commission had to police broadband providers.
  I represent South Dakota, a rural State that is home to small but 
still very innovative technology businesses. In other parts of the 
State, communities lack access to high-speed broadband. In the debate 
over the FCC regulating broadband with rules designed for phone 
monopolies, there were many concerns that Chairman Wheeler's approach 
would create uncertainty that chills investment.
  ``Chilling investment'' is a term that one often hears among the 
business community. To me, what it really means is that many Americans 
in rural communities will have to wait longer before they have an 
opportunity to select high-speed internet service. Today there are 34 
million Americans who lack access to broadband services at home.
  As innovation on the internet thrives, demand for data rises, and the 
stock market hits all-time highs, one would have suspected that 
broadband investment would continue growing as it had for two decades. 
But according to one analysis, annual investment actually went down 5.5 
percent in 2016 compared to 2014. This is a troubling sign that private 
investment may have second thoughts about the ability to turn capital 
expenditures into future profits under an excessive regulatory regime.
  Chairman Wheeler assured the public that his FCC would not use new 
authority over the internet to aggressively restrict many regular 
online practices, but he could not offer assurances that, as years pass 
and administrations change, such regulatory restraint would remain. His 
order gives wide legal latitude for any future FCC

[[Page S3029]]

not bound by his commitments to touch any and every corner of the 
internet. After all, unless grounded in legislation, partisan policy 
changes through administrative action can be fleeting.
  Today's action at the FCC aptly underscores the concern that the 
FCC's partisan approach to internet policy in 2015 did not put the 
internet on a solid foundation. I know there are many upset about what 
the FCC is doing. I felt much the same way 2 years ago when the FCC 
voted to proceed after my bipartisan outreach had been rejected.
  We should not, however, view the FCC's action today as a final 
outcome. While I commend Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael 
O'Rielly for taking this necessary step, I fully recognize that today's 
action alone does not create ideal certainty for the internet. There is 
more work yet to do.
  In politics, it is rare to get a second chance at bipartisan 
compromise, yet right now we have an opportunity to accomplish what 
eluded us 2 years ago--clear and certain rules in statute to protect 
the open internet. We have another chance to sit down, to discuss every 
stakeholder's concerns, and to work toward the common goal of 
protecting the internet.
  While the FCC's 2015 order may soon be consigned to the dustbin of 
history, the last few months have shown that political winds can and 
often do shift suddenly.
  To my colleagues in both the majority and minority: The only way to 
truly provide legal and political certainty for open internet 
protections is for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation. We need a 
statute offering clear and enduring rules that balance innovation and 
investment throughout the entire internet ecosystem.
  In crafting rules, we need to listen to the concerns of all Americans 
who support an open internet but who may have differing opinions about 
the greatest threats to online freedom. For some Americans, the 
greatest concern is meddling by internet service providers, and for 
others it is unelected bureaucrats attempting to overprotect Americans 
from products and services that they actually like.
  Online innovation is a virtuous circle. Online companies need robust 
and widely available broadband networks to reach their customers, and 
ISPs need the online experience to be compelling enough to drive 
subscriber demand.
  We need to work together collaboratively to find the right policies 
for the internet. I firmly believe we can find common ground to protect 
the internet, so long as we don't fixate on the misguided notion that 
monopoly regulation is the only way to preserve it. While some may wish 
to wait until the activities at the FCC and in the courts have 
completely run their course, my preference would be to begin bipartisan 
work on such legislation without any further delay. Innovation and job 
creation should no longer take a backseat to partisan point scoring.
  It is time for Congress to finally settle this matter. I am happy to 
meet at any time with any of my colleagues who are serious about 
discussing a path forward. I would also welcome discussing any new open 
internet proposals from my colleagues that balance the need for both 
innovation and investment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, after reviewing Rachel Brand's record 
and testimony during her confirmation hearing, I cannot support her 
nomination to become Associate Attorney General.
  Ms. Brand is a fierce supporter of the so-called Patriot Act and the 
bulk collection of millions of Americans' data. Americans deserve an 
Associate Attorney General who can properly balance their 
Constitutionally protected right to privacy against national security 
interests. Ms. Brand has demonstrated her willingness to abridge those 
rights.
  I am particularly disturbed by Ms. Brand's tenure as the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy 
from 2005 to 2007. Ms. Brand worked at the Department at the time when 
Bradley Schlozman, a high-ranking official within the Department of 
Civil Rights, was accused of inappropriately politicizing the 
Department. Ms. Brand's emails during her time at the Department 
indicate that she may have been aware of and, indeed, a willing 
participant in this inappropriate activity. Conservative groups are now 
urging Attorney General Sessions to ``wash out the progressive liberal 
activism that infects the agency from top to bottom.'' This Justice 
Department under Attorney General Sessions is already facing its own 
ethics crisis. When President Trump flouts protocols and procedures 
with impunity, I cannot in good conscience vote to allow Ms. Brand to 
return to the Department of Justice and continue where she left off.
  Mr. THUNE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.