[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 203 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7979-S7980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE INTERNET

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, one of the great advances of our time 
has been the development and expansion of the internet and wireless 
technologies. The internet connects people across the globe in an 
unprecedented way. It brings together producers and consumers, students 
and educators, and even Members of the Senate with our constituents.
  It is difficult to exaggerate the impact the internet has on our 
society

[[Page S7980]]

and our economy each and every day. Even a few decades ago, the 
technologies many of us take for granted today would have been totally 
unfathomable.
  But the success of the Internet wasn't an accident. Today's 
internet--and all the incredible innovations that utilize it--aren't 
the product of unnecessary and burdensome government regulations that 
hindered growth. Instead, they were the direct result of a bipartisan 
desire to create an environment of advancement--one that utilized a 
light regulatory touch. Innovators were free to create and develop what 
they wanted to, without having to think about complying with 
overbearing Washington regulation.
  As the internet grows, so does the United States. Our Nation has led 
the world in internet technology, and citizens throughout the country 
and the world have enjoyed the benefits.
  However, the previous administration seemed bent on subjecting the 
internet to a whole host of new regulations--rules designed in the age 
of the rotary phone and rooted in the railroad era of the 1800s. 
Through unprecedented government overreach, the Obama administration 
argued that this change would fix a problem. But there wasn't a problem 
that needed fixing.
  Therefore at the behest of President Obama in 2015, the partisan 
majority at the Federal Communications Commission rejected our decades-
old approach and reclassified broadband internet access. This overreach 
subjected it to new burdens and regulations and threatened the 
marketplace freedom and innovation that brought us the internet we have 
come to know today.
  It shouldn't shock any of my colleagues to hear that an increase in 
burdensome regulations created uncertainty for businesses of all sizes 
and negatively impacted investment. In the last 2 years, broadband 
investment has suffered a serious decline, even though many Americans, 
including large numbers in rural States like Kentucky, lack access to 
crucial internet services at home.
  Earlier this year, President Trump changed direction from the 
previous administration. He elevated Ajit Pai to serve as the Chairman 
of the FCC, and tomorrow, the Commission will vote to repeal the 
misguided 2015 rule.
  Chairman Pai submitted a proposal to restore freedom to the internet 
and to classify broadband internet access once again as an information 
service, just like it was until 2015.
  When the FCC votes tomorrow, they will be voting to return the 
internet to a consumer-driven marketplace free of innovation-stifling 
regulations.
  Opponents of Chairman Pai's plan have expressed their concerns about 
unfair or disruptive business practices that may hurt consumers' access 
to the internet. However, his proposal will actually restore the 
Federal Trade Commission's authority to protect consumers and police 
companies that engage in unfair practices.
  Chairman Pai's proposal will also require internet service providers 
to clearly disclose how they treat their customers' data so that 
consumers can choose the services that are right for them.
  I look forward to their vote in support of the open internet and to 
Congress's actions in the future to keep the internet open for 
consumers in a lasting way.
  Before I continue onto another matter, I feel that it is necessary to 
take a moment to discuss the vitriolic and divisive debate over this 
topic.
  As my colleagues know, I am a strong defender of political speech, 
and I have fought for decades to protect the rights of all Americans to 
question government policies. However, the discussion on this issue 
took on a new tone. While the First Amendment protects political 
speech, it is no excuse for bad conduct.

  Instead of debating the effects of a proposal, some of the far left 
engaged in personal attacks, even going as low as to promulgate attacks 
citing Chairman Pai's children. This type of behavior does nothing to 
elevate our Nation's discourse or forward a particular policy. I hope 
that we can all agree that this type of harassment deserves universal 
condemnation.

                          ____________________