[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 12, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3943-S3948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Net Neutrality

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon with 
my colleague, the Senator from Hawaii, who has been leading our efforts 
on coordinating a very loud and resounding voice on trying to stop the 
FCC from running over an open internet, and I thank him for his 
organization for today. I know we will be joined by our colleague, 
Senator Wyden from Oregon--and perhaps the other Senator from Oregon 
and several others--to talk about this important issue.
  We are here today to try to draw attention to one of those important 
economic issues before us: the need to preserve an open internet with 
strong net neutrality laws.
  We are facing a pivotal moment in the fight to preserve an open and 
fair internet. A strong and open internet is, without question, one of 
the great innovations of our time and one of the great job creators of 
our time. Yet the Trump administration stands poised to undo the 
bedrock principle of net neutrality in the face of evidence it would 
undermine our economy and undermine future job growth.
  The FCC has announced its intention to go against the demands of 5 
million American consumers and reverse what is an existing rule so that 
big cable companies and telecom providers can erect toll lanes; that 
is, if you want fast internet speed, you have to pay more. This would 
threaten the fundamental nature of our internet and the innovation 
economy.
  Last week, FCC Commissioner Clyburn and I held a townhall meeting on 
net neutrality in Seattle. More than 300 people attended, and not one 
was in favor of paying higher prices to their cable company for worse 
or inhibited internet services.
  Many people shared their personal stories about how an internet with 
toll lanes would affect them negatively. We heard from many small 
businesses and startups that they were afraid of losing business 
because they might have to charge higher prices to their customers if 
these important protections were reversed.
  I heard from people with health problems and their concerns about 
health emergencies while away from home. The absence of net neutrality 
rules would mean that a doctor in their small hometown could not get 
critical information to the medical practitioners who are dealing with 
a patient in an emergency so that they could get important lifesaving 
treatments. Whether you are a doctor examining a patient via 
telemedicine or in an emergency room in Seattle or a student in a rural 
community trying to access the

[[Page S3944]]

internet to get information, take a test or do research, a fast 
connection is necessary. Your ability to have a fast connection is 
something you are more than just a little concerned about. Being 
artificially slowed down in favor of big companies that buy faster 
lanes would turn our economy in the wrong direction.
  Our economy is in the midst of a massive technological 
transformation. As technology advances, incredible opportunities and 
new jobs are created. Every business plan of every startup relies on 
the ability to get content to consumers.
  Largely as a result of innovation and the proliferation of hundreds 
of startups in the United States, the internet economy today is now 
worth $966 billion and accounts for almost 6 percent of our U.S. GDP. 
This is a higher percentage of the U.S. economy than many other 
industry sectors, including construction, mining, utilities, 
agriculture, and education.
  Net neutrality--meaning you have an open internet that is not 
artificially slowed down unless you pay a ransom--is important for 
small businesses and startups and entrepreneurs who rely so much now on 
an integrated business model where internet access, marketing, and 
advertising their products and services to reach customers is critical. 
We need an open internet. We need it to foster job creation, 
competition, and innovation for the almost 3 million Americans workers 
who already rely on the internet economy today.
  When net neutrality was implemented a year-plus ago, we were 
protecting and making sure there was no uneven playing field. 
Basically, because of the regulations, we were able to help small 
businesses and entrepreneurs thrive. But our internet providers are 
internet gatekeepers, and without net neutrality, they would seize upon 
the opportunity to change that.
  One slice of the internet economy--the app economy, which is growing 
every single day--consists of everyone who makes money and has a job, 
thanks to mobile apps powered by an open internet. Today, 1.7 million 
Americans have jobs because of this economy. Nearly 92,000 of those 
jobs are in my State of Washington.
  Over the past 5 years, the app economy jobs have grown at an annual 
rate of 30 percent. I don't know of another sector that is growing that 
fast. The average growth rate for all other jobs is about 1.6 percent. 
By 2020, the app economy could grow to over $100 billion. Why is this 
so important? Because we all know that these various applications and 
apps make our lives better. They make it easier. In a busy world, they 
are helping us do the things that are so important to us with more ease 
and more certainty.
  The internet economy is dynamic and supercharged in creating job 
growth. This phenomenon of economic growth trajectory would not be 
possible without the internet as a platform for economic activity. This 
is why it is so important that the FCC not, in the dark of night, put 
down a rule without public comment to try to stop and change this 
direction that has already been protected by past FCC Commissioners. 
This is why my colleagues and I are here today on a date when everybody 
is trying to raise awareness--because the FCC could act as early as 
August 18 to try to change these rules.
  It is important that we oppose any new FCC actions trying to 
dismantle an open internet. We need to make sure we are talking about 
the harm to consumers, the harm to innovation, and the fact that 
internet speeds for American consumers are important and consumers 
shouldn't be burdened by a cable company holding you at ransom to pay 
more just to get faster speeds.
  Consumers are already struggling with high prices. Cable bills rose 
39 percent from 2011 to 2015, eight times the rate of inflation. In 
2015, the average consumer cable TV bill was $99 a month; just a year 
later, the average consumer cable bill had risen by 4 percent to over 
$103. My guess is a lot of people listening to this now are probably 
thinking, boy, where are we today?
  One of the most popular arguments by the enemies of an open internet 
is that it suppresses investment and leaves consumers with poor 
broadband infrastructure. That is a false claim. Data shows that 
investment by publicly traded cable companies and big telephone 
companies was 5 percent higher during the 2-year period following our 
protection of an open internet. Clearly, people are continuing to make 
investment.
  I want to make sure people understand that we do not want to see a 
change in this policy. We do not want to see American consumers run 
over by large cable companies that are demanding higher rates. We want 
to make sure that we don't end up with a two-tiered internet system--
one for big companies who will pay and pay and pay for faster rates, 
and consumers who are left with a very slowed-down, challenging to use 
internet, which makes it hard for us to continue to innovate.
  I encourage the American consumer to go out and contact the FCC. Yes, 
your voice can be heard. The FCC has already received 5 million 
comments, and they have until August 17 to hear more. Today, we are 
asking everybody in America to say: Please don't slow down my internet 
connection. Don't hurt our economy; don't hurt American business. 
Invest in innovation, and keep an open internet for the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her leadership on tech and technology issues and, in particular, on net 
neutrality.
  I would like to amend one thing she said. She said that we got about 
5 million comments in favor of net neutrality on this question. It is 
true. Yesterday we had 5 million and change, but I just checked, and we 
are at 6.728 million, and more and more people are weighing in on this 
important issue.
  As of today, it is important to point out that net neutrality is the 
law of the land. We are not asking for a change in the way that the 
internet operates. We are asking for the internet, as we know it, to be 
preserved.
  What does that really mean? It means you have an arrangement with 
your ISP. You pay your internet service provider for access to the 
internet, and you get the whole internet. Your provider does not get to 
decide what you access. You do. Whether it is NBC or ABC, Hulu or 
Netflix or Breitbart or Google or Yahoo or Facebook or the New York 
Times or RedState or HotAir or whatever you want, you get to go there, 
and everything comes down from the internet at whatever speed it comes 
down. But without net neutrality, that arrangement could change.
  The free and open internet, as we understand it, is a premise of the 
way we use the internet. It is a premise of the internet economy. It is 
a premise of Silicon Valley. It has now become a premise of car 
companies and real estate companies and anybody who does business 
online that, of course, you wouldn't have to pay money to an ISP to 
make sure your website loads fast enough so that consumers can see it. 
But that freedom, that free and open internet, really is in danger.
  Here is what is happening: The FCC, the Federal Communications 
Commission, is trying to change the internet by ending the net 
neutrality rules that were put in place. If they succeed, your ISP will 
have the power to stop you from seeing certain kinds of content. They 
will be the ones that get to make decisions about what you can access 
and how fast--not you. It is a foundational change in the way the 
internet operates.
  Now, some people--including the internet company lobbyists and their 
CEOs--will say: Look, the companies aren't going to change the internet 
even if the law goes away. In fact, we are committing to voluntary net 
neutrality. That is what they say.
  But I want you to think about how likely it is that a publicly traded 
company will not at least explore the possibility of different business 
models, and here is the problem: There may be opportunities without net 
neutrality for them to make more money.
  Right now I have basic cable in my apartment. I don't have HBO. Back 
in Hawaii I have HBO and the whole deal, but in my apartment here I 
have more basic cable. I pay for a certain number of channels. I don't 
get access to the entire TV universe. I pay for packages. There is no 
reason under the law, should they repeal net neutrality, that

[[Page S3945]]

an ISP couldn't give the liberal package, which you could pay $75 for, 
or the conservative package, which you could pay $75 for, or the NBC-
related families package, which you could pay $120 for--or maybe it is 
free because it is part of a vertical, which is included in your ISP.
  The whole idea is that there is nothing preventing them--except these 
net neutrality laws--from deciding whom you get, where you get to 
visit, and how fast the downloads come. This is especially important, 
of course, in the entertainment space, when we are all streaming TV, 
news, movies, and even gaming online so the relationship between the 
person who creates the content and you is going to be intermediated by 
an ISP.
  If you have a great app idea, right now you just have to have a great 
app idea. If you have a great website, people can log on to your 
website and you are in business. If you have the next great website, if 
you have eBay or Craigslist or Amazon, but it is post-net neutrality 
and the FCC goes through with this, you will not need a bunch of 
engineers but a bunch of lawyers and business sharks to try to 
negotiate with the ISP to even get in the door.
  Students could have less access to online resources, including online 
classes. Realtors would be stopped from using online tools to sell 
their homes. Patients might not able to use the internet to communicate 
with their doctors or monitor their health. Musicians, photographers, 
entrepreneurs will use the tools everybody depends on to make a living 
or share their art online.
  I was talking to somebody I know in the tech community, and they were 
saying that this is a parade of horribles. None of this is going to 
come true.
  I asked: Why do you think that is true? Why do you think this is just 
some apocryphal scenario I am describing? If you were an ISP, why 
wouldn't you slice up the internet and sell it for more? If you are the 
one controlling the access to it and you are a publicly traded company, 
you have no duty to a free and open internet. You have a duty to 
maximize shareholder profits.
  If your board of directors comes to you and says: You know what, this 
whole ``you pay a flat fee and you get the whole internet,'' that is 
not the right business model. Look at these areas where ISPs are the 
only provider in many communities. The idea that the consumer has a 
choice in lots of rural communities, you have only one broadband 
provider in the first place.
  Why wouldn't a broadband provider slice and dice up the internet and 
charge you a la carte? They can get more money for this. It is not that 
they are bad people. It is that they are duty bound to maximize 
profits.
  Today, July 12, is the day of action. The internet is pushing back. 
Today we stand up to the FCC so the internet remains free and open. As 
we speak--I mean literally as we speak--thousands and thousands of 
people across the country by the minute are logging on to the FCC 
website to express themselves.
  I have to say, this has become a Democratic issue. This has become a 
progressive issue, but it wasn't so long ago that people in the 
conservative movement were worried about media consolidation and the 
conservative movement was saying: Hey, listen, I don't know who is 
going to own my media company, but I want to get to my websites to get 
my content at whatever rate it comes down. Don't tell me what 
information I get to have access to.
  Everybody uses the internet. Many people are spending dozens of hours 
a week on the internet via their phones, via their television, via 
their broadband connection at home, and the innovation economy that 
underlies our economic growth is really in jeopardy.
  I know it is an arcane process. I know most people probably haven't 
even heard of the FCC. To talk about net neutrality and lay all this 
jargon on you, it is concerning that the free and open internet is 
really in danger. We have this unique opportunity because unlike what 
happened a few months ago with consumer privacy, where very quickly 
this body reversed a rule that provides for privacy so your broadband 
providers can't resell your personal browsing data to a third-party 
advertiser or any other company--that happened very quickly and without 
any public input.
  Here is the really good thing about the FCC process. The statute 
provides for public input. We are in a public comment period, and July 
17 is the deadline. There is an opportunity for people to let their 
voices be heard. The internet should be in the hands of people, not in 
the hands of companies.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Hawaii, the 
Senator from Washington State, and I know the Senator from Oregon is 
going to be joining us very soon and taking this long, hot summer day 
in Washington and turning up the heat on the Trump administration and 
the big broadband companies.
  Today the internet is having a protest. More than 80,000 websites are 
participating in today's national day of action on net neutrality to 
stand up for the fundamental right for a free and open internet.
  Today's action involves some of the internet's biggest names: 
Netflix, Twitter, Amazon, Snapchat, Mozilla, Yelp, Airbnb. It also 
includes many others. My own website and other Democratic Senators and 
House Members have joined in today's protests.
  Earlier today, right outside on the Capitol lawn, I gathered with 
many of my Senate and House colleagues, along with businesses and 
advocacy, consumer protection, nonprofit, and political organizations 
to send a singular message: We will defend net neutrality.
  Net neutrality is the basic principle that says that all internet 
traffic is treated equally. It applies the principles of 
nondiscrimination to the online world, ensuring that internet service 
providers--AT&T, Charter, Verizon, Comcast, among others--do not block, 
do not slow down, do not censor or prioritize internet traffic.
  Yet today, the internet--this monumental, diverse, dynamic, 
democratic platform--is under attack. President Trump and his FCC 
Chairman, Ajit Pai, are threatening to disrupt this hallmark of 
American innovation and democracy by gutting net neutrality rules. They 
have put internet freedom on the chopping block. We are facing a 
historic fight.
  If Trump's FCC gets its way, a handful of big broadband companies 
will serve as gatekeepers to the internet. We cannot let this happen. 
That is why millions of Americans are standing up and making sure their 
voices are heard at the Federal Communications Commission.
  They know the internet--the world's greatest platform for commerce 
and communications--is at stake. It is net neutrality that ensures that 
those with the best ideas, not merely the best access, can thrive in 
the 21st century economy; that a garage-based startup in Malden, MA, 
can have the same online reach and scope as a major tech firm in 
Silicon Valley.
  It is net neutrality that has made the Internet an innovation 
incubator and job generator for the entire Nation. It is net neutrality 
that has been the internet's chief governing principle since its 
inception.
  Consider that today essentially every company is an internet company. 
In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in the 
United States went toward internet-specific and software companies. 
That is $25 billion worth of venture capital funding in our country. 
Half of all venture capital went into that sector, this innovation 
sector that continues to transform not only our own economy but the 
whole world's economy. At the same time, to meet America's insatiable 
demand for broadband internet, U.S. broadband and telecommunications 
industry companies invested more than $87 billion in capital 
expenditures in 2015. That is the highest rate of annual investment in 
the last 10 years by the broadband companies.
  We have hit a sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless 
technologies is high. Job creation is high. Venture capital investment 
in online startups is high. That is what we want. We want both the 
broadband companies and all of these smaller companies--whose names 
escape us because there are tens of thousands of them--to have a chance 
to coexist and have the innovation continue, even as the large 
companies continue to invest in broadband expansion.

[[Page S3946]]

  It is the free and open internet that has allowed us to enter a new 
phase of the digital revolution--the internet of things era--where our 
devices, our appliances, and everyday machines now connect with one 
another.
  The digital revolution is a global economic engine, and net 
neutrality is its best fuel. Taking these rules off the books makes no 
sense. With these net neutrality protections in place, there is no 
problem that needs fixing. It is working right now perfectly.
  In May, Chairman Ajit Pai and the Republican FCC voted to begin a 
proceeding that will effectively eliminate net neutrality protections, 
allowing a handful of broadband providers to control the internet. 
Chairman Pai's proposal would decimate the open internet order and the 
net neutrality rules that are protecting the free flow of ideas, 
commerce, and communications in our country.
  Now the big broadband barons and their Republican allies say we need 
a light-touch regulatory framework. Let's be honest. When the broadband 
behemoths say ``light touch,'' what they really mean is ``hands off''--
hands off their ability to choose online winners and losers.
  We are not fooled when AT&T engages in alternative facts and says 
they support net neutrality and today's day of action. They don't 
support title II, and they don't support net neutrality. We must shine 
light on this kind of corporate deception.
  What the broadband providers really want is an unregulated online 
ecosystem where they can stifle the development of competing services 
that cannot afford an internet easy pass.
  Chairman Pai says he likes net neutrality but simply wants to 
eliminate the very order that established today's net neutrality rules. 
That is like saying you want to have your cake and eat it too. It makes 
no sense.
  President Trump and his Republican allies are waging an all-out 
assault on every front that they can on our core democratic values. 
Whether it is healthcare, immigration, climate change, or net 
neutrality, they want to end the vital protections that safeguard our 
families and hand over power to corporations and special interests. We 
know better.
  We need to make our voices heard. A political firestorm of opposition 
will protect our economy, protect our free speech, protect our 
democracy. We must protect net neutrality as a core principle in a 
modern 21st century America, in a modern America where the smallest 
company online can aspire to reach all 320 million Americans in a 
nondiscriminatory way, where the smallest company can raise the capital 
in order to accomplish that goal, where the smallest company doesn't 
have to ask for permission to be able to innovate in our society, where 
the smallest doesn't have to first raise the money to ensure they can 
pay to have access to this incredible economic engine of 
entrepreneurial expression that has been the internet for this last 
generation, where free speech, the First Amendment, this ability to be 
able to speak unfettered, uncontrolled by corporate America and whether 
or not you can afford to speak, is something that continues to be 
protected in our country.
  That is what net neutrality is all about. The principles of 
nondiscriminatory access is what gave us Google and eBay, Amazon and 
Hulu, YouTube and Etsy, Zulily, Wayfair, TripAdvisor, and company after 
company that knew they could access every single potential consumer in 
our country and could, as a result, raise the capital necessary to 
ensure that engine of economic entrepreneurial innovation could be 
deployed from their minds in changing fundamentally the economy of our 
country and the economy of the world.
  In 2017, every company is an internet company. Every company depends 
upon free and open access to the internet. That is what we have been 
transformed into in just the last 20 years.
  I was the Democratic coauthor of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 
In 1996, not one home in America had broadband. Can I say that again? 
Just 20 years ago, not one home in America had broadband. But we 
changed the rules to create this chaotic entrepreneurial world where 
all of a sudden all of these companies whose names are now common 
household names could be created, transforming our economy.
  There is no problem. They are trying to fix a problem that does not 
exist.
  We need to give the next generation of entrepreneurs the same 
opportunity to innovate that the last generation had--not to get 
permission, not to ask: Pretty please, may I reach all 320 million 
Americans? No, ladies and gentlemen, that is not what this revolution 
is about. That is not what young people all across this country--with 
brilliant new ideas to further transform our American economy online--
want to have as an obstacle.
  What will happen now is you will have an idea, but if you can't raise 
the money to pay for this fast-lane broadband access, that is going to 
throttle back your ability to be able to move in this agile way that 
the internet provides. Instead of agility, it will be hostility that 
you will be feeling as an entrepreneur, feeling you can't take the 
risk--you are not sure you can reach your customers; you are not sure 
you can pay the broadband company--rather than ensuring that you can 
reach all these consumers for your revolutionary idea.
  This internet day of action we are having across the country is going 
to raise from 5 million, to 6 million, to 7 million, to 10 million, to 
15 million, to 20 million, the number of Americans who are going to be 
saying to the Federal Communications Commission and to the U.S. House 
and Senate that something is fundamentally wrong with this FCC and its 
potential change of the internet--Open Internet Order.
  If they do move, we are going to court. If they do move, we are going 
to be taking this all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States 
of America because that is how important this issue is. It goes right 
to the fundamental nature of what has happened to our economy in the 
last 20 years. And that is all it took. We moved from the black rotary 
dial phone to a world where everyone is carrying a computer in their 
pockets. It happened just like that. It could have happened before 
that, but it wasn't possible because the broadband companies didn't 
even exist. There were just telephone companies and cable companies 
that did not have a vision of the future. Their vision of the future is 
a lot like their vision of the past before that law passed, which is, 
let's go back to total control by a small handful of companies in our 
communications cocktail, rather than thinking of the future, as tens of 
thousands, hundreds of thousands of smaller companies can be started up 
in dorm rooms and garages across our Nation.
  This is a dangerous and harmful plan the FCC has on the books today. 
Today's day of internet action will be increasing as each moment goes 
by between now and the day they make that decision at the FCC.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to build on the last point my 
colleague--a great advocate and champion of net neutrality--made about 
the rule of law and about the need to go to court when there is utter 
disrespect and contempt for the rule of law, which is reflected in the 
prospective plan of the Chairman of the FCC to undo that agency's net 
neutrality rules. It reflects an astonishing lack of respect and care 
for that agency's rules--in fact, the rules that apply to all agencies 
under the Administrative Procedure Act.
  Chairman Pai wants to overturn a rule that was established after a 
factfinding--an elaborate process of comment and response--without 
going through that same process that is required under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, a fact-based docket that requires him to 
show that something has changed--not a little bit; something 
significant has changed--in the market since the Open Internet Order 
was established in February 2015. The burden is on the FCC to make that 
finding. That finding is impossible, which is why they are avoiding the 
attempt to do it.
  The fact is, the Open Internet Order was established based on 10 
years of evidence about how internet access service provides people 
with broadband. It has been upheld by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals 
twice over the last year. The thicket of law that the Chairman wants to 
simply leap over--it is not within his discretion to do.

[[Page S3947]]

  The most recent evidence shows that net neutrality has not inhibited 
network investment at all, in contrast to Chairman Pai's claims. 
According to statements this year by the internet service providers--
AT&T, in fact, is expanding fiber deployment and calling fiber a growth 
opportunity. Comcast is saying that it doubles its network capacity 
every 18 to 24 months. Verizon is announcing a new $1 billion 
investment in cable. That is why we are here saying we will not and we 
cannot allow Chairman Pai to succeed in this plan to gut neutrality at 
the behest of big cable companies.
  I am proud to speak today in support of the Day of Action to Save Net 
Neutrality and against the FCC proposal to undo the Open Internet Order 
because it is really a consummate pro-consumer measure. The Open 
Internet Order serves the best interests of consumers directly but also 
the best interests of competition in promoting innovation, new ideas, 
and insights--an open platform that is necessary for innovation and 
insights that benefit consumers, as well as the products and services 
that companies generally provide.
  The Open Internet Order created three bright-line rules: No blocking, 
no throttling, and no pay prioritization. These rules apply to both 
fixed and mobile broadband service, which protects consumers no matter 
how they access the internet, whether on a desktop or a mobile service. 
Consumers deserve equal access, an open platform--no walls benefiting 
the companies that may want their gardens walled in. The walls are 
against consumer interest, and breaking down those walls is what the 
open internet rule sought to do.
  It also has real First Amendment significance. In one of the most 
recently proposed megamergers--AT&T and Time Warner--clearly content, 
access, and neutrality are at stake. This merger gives the combined 
company, if the merger is approved, both the incentive and the means to 
throttle First Amendment expression. There have been reports that the 
White House will use this merger, in fact, to throttle the First 
Amendment rights of CNN, which is owned by Time Warner. This would be a 
direct threat to all First Amendment liberties.
  Using antitrust policy and power to diminish or demean the rights of 
free expression would be a grave disservice to this country, as well as 
the rule of law. That is why I have written to the nominee for the 
Department of Justice Antitrust Division chief, the Assistant Attorney 
General for Antitrust, Makan Delrahim, and asked for a meeting so he 
can ensure us that, in fact, antitrust policy will be independently 
enforced, that these reports do not reflect his view or the 
administration policy. I want him to assure us that this merger will in 
no way be used to influence or impede any media outlet.
  But access and an open internet are principles that go beyond the 
enforcement of antitrust law; they are principles enforced by the FCC 
for the public good. That is why this Day of Action to Save Net 
Neutrality is so critically important, because the grassroots movement 
here is what will save the day. The grassroots and consumer-driven 
impetus to make sure that the internet remains a free and open platform 
for consumers and innovators, not a walled garden for wealthy 
companies, is what we seek today.
  That is why I am proud to stand with other colleagues who have spoken 
and to continue this battle and to say to all of our colleagues that we 
will go to court, because the rule of law and the Administrative 
Procedure Act are not technical, abstruse, arcane, unimportant rules; 
they are at the core of fairness and administrative regularity, not 
just regulation, the rule of law.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me just 
commend my friend from Connecticut on a very thoughtful statement. He 
has worked on these issues for many years since his days as attorney 
general in Connecticut. He is, in my view, the Senate's best lawyer. So 
it is great to have a chance to team up with him and our colleagues.
  I think this issue can really be summed up in a sentence, and that is 
this: Without net neutrality, you do not have a free and open internet 
because the essence of the internet--and I will explain what we have 
today--would simply not be the same.
  Today--and this is what net neutrality is all about, in a sentence--
after you pay your internet access fee, you get to go where you want, 
when you want, and how you want, and everybody is treated the same. 
From the most affluent person in America to those who are walking on an 
economic tightrope every single day, they all can use the internet to 
get access to those fundamental opportunities that are so essential to 
increasing the quality of life for our people. This, for example, is 
how a young person will have a chance to learn. If they are in a small, 
rural community in Colorado, Oregon, or elsewhere, this is how they get 
access to the kind of information that affluent kids get, who might 
live in Beverly Hills or Palm Beach or in any one of a number of 
communities where there are affluent people. This is what puts that 
youngster on the same plane as the affluent person. This is how, for 
example, those who are searching for jobs can go to the net and quickly 
get access to information where they will have a chance to get ahead.
  The internet--and a free and open internet--is particularly important 
to our startups, the innovators, and the small businesses that we are 
all counting on to have a chance to grow big. When you talk, 
particularly, to the small tech startups, they will say: Our goal is to 
be Google or Facebook. Innovation is what makes it possible to have 
those kinds of dreams. If you are starting small, with real net 
neutrality, as I have described it, you have the same chance to succeed 
as everybody else in America.
  Now the challenge here is that very powerful interests--the cable 
companies, for example--want to change that. They want to change what I 
described as net neutrality. They would like to set up what they call 
priority lanes, special lanes, or toll lanes, where, if you pay more, 
you can get access to more. You can get access to more content, and you 
can get access to data and information more quickly.
  What this really does is that it means those other people I was 
talking about--that startup trying to come out of the gate and be a 
success in the marketplace, students, and people who need information 
about healthcare and jobs and the like--are not treated the same way as 
the people with the deep pockets. All of a sudden their access to data 
and information is going to be different. It might be slower. Maybe 
they will not get it at all.
  The big powerful interests aren't going to tell everybody in America 
that they are against net neutrality. They will not be holding rallies 
saying: We have gotten together to oppose net neutrality. They will not 
be showing up in Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, or anywhere else and 
saying: We are against net neutrality. The reason they can't is because 
the public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality, as I have described 
it.
  They are going to say things like this: They are for net neutrality, 
but they just don't want all this government associated with what they 
have. They will be for voluntary net neutrality.
  I know the Presiding Officer of the Senate has young children as 
well. I can tell you that we are about as likely to make voluntary net 
neutrality work as we are to get William Peter Wyden, my 9-year-old 
son, to voluntarily agree to limit himself to one dessert with his 
deciding whether he has met his limit. It is not going to happen.
  Voluntary net neutrality isn't that different than what we have had 
in a lot of instances before we had real net neutrality. The big cable 
companies and others were always looking for dodges and loopholes, and 
they found ways to tack on fees and the like because that has always 
been their end game. Boy, it is a lawyer's full employment program 
because they have the capacity to litigate this.
  So this idea that people are going to hear a lot about in the next 
few weeks--that they are really for net neutrality, but we will just 
make it voluntary--I want people to understand that the history of 
those kinds of approaches is not exactly sterling. I think it is about 
as likely to be successful as limiting my kid to voluntarily holding 
back on dessert.

[[Page S3948]]

  I also want to make clear what our challenge is going to be about 
because the Federal Communications Commission--Senator Blumenthal 
talked about it and others--is going to be making decisions on this 
before too long. We know where the votes are. This is going to be a 
long battle, but one of the reasons I wanted to come to the floor today 
is to say that this is another one of these issues that is going to 
show that political change doesn't start in Washington, DC, and then 
trickle down to people. It will be bottom-up, as more and more 
Americans find out what is at stake here.
  A few years back, I would say the Presiding Officer of the Senate--
and I see my colleague from the Finance Committee here, as well--and my 
colleagues will remember the PIPA and SOPA bills. These were the bills, 
PIPA and SOPA, that were anti-internet bills. As with so much, people 
can have a difference of opinion, and the sponsors said: We have to 
fight piracy. We have to fight piracy, people ripping everybody off 
online. To fight piracy, we will use these two bills to kind of change 
the architecture of the internet, particularly the domain name system, 
which is basically the phone book of the internet.
  I looked at it, and I said: We are all against piracy. We are against 
people selling fake Viagra, or whatever it is online, but why would we 
want to wreck the architecture of the internet in order to deal with 
it? There are other kinds of remedies.
  So I put in a bill with a conservative Republican in the other body 
to come up with an alternative approach, and I put a hold on PIPA and 
SOPA. Here in the Senate, at that time, 44 Senators were cosponsors of 
that bill. That is an army--out of the 100, 44 Senators.
  Everybody said: You know, Ron is putting a hold on it, and, well, he 
is a nice guy and, you know, he is from Oregon.
  Everybody smiled, and I said: OK, I understand that you think this is 
going to be a slam dunk, but I think I will tell you that you should 
know that there are more Americans who spend more time online in a week 
than they do thinking about their U.S. Senator in 2 years, and they 
aren't going to be happy with a whole bunch of powerful interests 
messing with the internet, just as we are doing with this situation 
where people want to unravel real net neutrality.
  So a vote was scheduled on whether to oppose my hold--in effect, lift 
my hold--on this flawed bill, and 4 days before the vote, more than 10 
million Americans called, texted, tweeted, and logged in to say to 
their Senator: Do not vote to lift Ron Wyden's hold.
  About 36 hours after Americans had weighed in, the Senate leadership 
called me, not very happy, and said: You won. We are not going to have 
a vote. Your hold has prevailed.
  I bring this up only by way of saying that it is going to take that 
same kind of grassroots uprising for Americans who want to keep real 
net neutrality, which is what you have after you pay your internet 
access fee, and you get to go where you want, when you want, and how 
you want, and everybody is treated equally in those efforts. For all of 
us who want to keep that, we need to understand that we are in for a 
long battle. We know where the votes are at the Federal Communications 
Commission, but that is just the beginning. That is just the beginning.
  So now is the time to make your voice heard. Go to 
battleforthenet.com so your voices can be heard. Make sure that Donald 
Trump's FCC Commissioner knows your view that the internet is better 
and stronger with real net neutrality protections. Americans have only 
until July 17 to do this.
  I have already been speaking out in other kinds of sessions. So I 
think I will leave it at that.
  I wish to close by saying again that without real strong net 
neutrality, which is what we have today, we will not have a free and 
open internet for all Americans to enjoy. So I come to the floor to say 
this is going to be a long battle. Nobody thought we had a prayer to 
win the fight to protect the internet that was PIPA and SOPA, and I am 
sure a lot of people are saying that this is another one where the 
powerful interests are going to win.
  I say to the Senate again: Not so fast. You are going to see the 
power of Americans speaking out. I urge all the people of this country 
who are following what goes on in the Senate today and in the days 
ahead to be part of this effort, because I think if they do, if we show 
that political change isn't top-down but bottom-up, it is going to be a 
long battle, but we will win, and our country will keep a bedrock 
principle of the free and open internet, which is real net neutrality.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Texas.