[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 203 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7987-S7990]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. President, almost 60 years ago, America entered the space age. We 
pushed the bounds of human knowledge to do, see, and create things that 
fundamentally changed the way we live our lives. The government was 
right smack at the center of all of it, dedicating resources and 
manpower to explorations of science, medicine, engineering, and 
technology. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, 
was a product of that commitment, and it was there at DARPA that a 
bunch of government and government-funded researchers created the 
internet.
  In the intervening decades, what started in that government Agency 
provided the building blocks for what we experience as the internet 
today. Creative minds in government, at colleges and universities, in 
businesses, and at homes and garages all across the country toyed and 
tinkered and pushed us into the digital age.
  Today, internet use is nearly universal. Although internet access 
remains limited in many rural and low-income areas, students of all 
ages go online to access educational tools and conduct research for 
many school assignments. Entrepreneurs and small businesses sell goods 
and transact business online. Families come together to watch their 
favorite movies or shows. The internet and broadband services have 
become an important part of our lives.
  Government is just as important now as it was back when the internet 
was created. By enforcing and implementing America's communications 
laws and rules, the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, plays a 
critical role in making sure that the internet remains fair and open.
  In 2015, the FCC enshrined that commitment in an open internet order, 
establishing net neutrality rules--strong, public interest rules that 
prevented big companies from deciding how or when we use the internet, 
rules that have the overwhelming support of the vast majority of 
Americans, Republican or Democrat.
  But big internet companies don't want the FCC to work in the public 
interest; they want the internet to work for them. Long before the FCC 
passed net neutrality rules, those giants were working to establish 
control over the open internet. After net neutrality rules were passed, 
they stepped up their attack, deploying armies of lobbyists and lawyers 
and investing massive amounts of money to bury net neutrality rules.
  Now they have the champagne chilled and ready to pop open. They have 
a President and a GOP-controlled Congress that is more interested in 
stuffing the pockets of the rich and powerful than taking care of the 
workers, small businesses and entrepreneurs, students, children, the 
sick, the elderly, and just about everybody else. President Trump's 
choice to lead the FCC, Ajit Pai, is dedicated to transforming the FCC 
from an agency that works in the public interest into a big business 
giveaway group.
  Pai has been a vocal opponent of net neutrality rules for a very long 
time. After President Trump won the election, Pai gleefully declared 
that net neutrality's days were numbered. Pai claims that 
nondiscrimination rules harm giant internet companies by making it more 
difficult for them to create new and better products. He thinks that if 
these giants can discriminate against small businesses or individuals, 
then these giants can pick who gets the fast lane into your television 
set and who is stuck off on the dirt roads. If these giants can dictate 
which startups get a foothold and which ones are left on the ground, 
then the giants will be better off. Of course, he is right--the giants 
will be better off, but everyone else will be a lot worse off.
  Chairman Pai is so committed to these internet giants that he is 
willing to rewrite the Federal rules in order to help them out. He is 
even willing to rewrite the rules so State and local governments won't 
be allowed to pass any consumer protection laws to protect their own 
citizens. Chairman Pai's notion of a fair and open internet is one that 
works for the highest bidder and it just leaves everyone else behind.
  Tomorrow, the FCC will vote on whether to eliminate the protections 
that ensure that the internet remains fair and open to all Americans--
protections that the vast majority of Americans support. Pai has 
barrelled full speed ahead despite disturbing reports that potentially 
hundreds of thousands of comments submitted during the public comment 
period were fake, and he has ignored the FCC's responsibility to turn 
over documents of consumer complaints about discriminatory behavior by 
internet providers.
  If the FCC eliminates net neutrality protections, giant internet 
companies will pop open those champagne bottles. They will have the 
power to block access, to filter content, to charge more--three 
powerful ways that they will pick the next round of America's winners 
and losers. That is not the way it should work in America. The internet 
doesn't belong to big internet companies; it belongs to all of us, and 
all of us should be part of this fight.
  Net neutrality matters. For the entrepreneur working around the clock 
on a shoestring budget to build an invention that can change the world, 
net neutrality matters. For the small family business that depends on 
online customers to keep its lights on and its doors open, net 
neutrality matters. For the blog writer or local journalist who works 
each day to bring us important news about our communities, our 
government, and our world, net neutrality matters. For every American 
who uses the internet for any reason, net neutrality matters.
  Ingenuity is in America's DNA. It is that spirit of curiosity and 
adventure that has put us at the forefront of the search for what is 
next. Government works best when it makes sure everyone has equal 
access to the resources that make that possible.
  In Massachusetts, Free Press, the Massachusetts Chapter of the ACLU, 
Fight for the Future, and countless other groups have led the fight to 
defend net neutrality and help citizens make their voices heard.
  I urge every American to speak out about why net neutrality matters. 
I urge the FCC to abandon its plan to kill net neutrality rules, and I 
ask the FCC to defend an internet that is fair and open to all.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I introduced the Senate's first strong net 
neutrality bill back in 2006. I rise today to give my strongest 
possible condemnation of what the Federal Communications Commission's 
head, Mr. Pai, is seeking to do, which is to roll back protections that 
ensure a truly free and open internet for our people.
  This is a handout. It is a holiday gift to a collection of giant 
internet companies to increase their profits at the expense of the 
consumer.
  Before I actually begin my remarks, I see Senator Franken is on the 
floor, as well. I would like the public to know how important his 
leadership has been on these issues. He and I have partnered on these 
issues ever since he came to the Senate. He was on the key committee, 
the Judiciary Committee. He has been a go-to figure in a key spot on 
this issue.
  I want to continue this discussion after Senator Warren's terrific 
presentation. I know my colleague is going to speak on this, as well.
  I want the public to know that Senator Franken has made a big 
difference for the consumer on these issues. Those

[[Page S7988]]

of us who have been toiling in these precincts are very appreciative of 
what he has done.
  I want people to understand what net neutrality is, because Senator 
Franken and I have talked about this over the years. I think there is a 
little confusion over what it is. Net neutrality means that after you 
pay your internet access fee, you get to go where you want, when you 
want, and how you want. It is the essence of ensuring that everybody 
gets a fair shake, that all bits are created equal. It is the 
foundation of what has kept the internet free and open.
  Before I get into my prepared remarks, I want people to understand 
what happens if you don't have net neutrality. If you don't have net 
neutrality, in effect, big companies can manipulate who is going to win 
and who is going to lose in the marketplace. They will continue to 
manipulate who wins and who loses until and after we get fewer services 
and the consumer gets higher prices. So this is not some kind of 
abstract discussion.
  Let me flesh out some of these remarks for a few minutes because I 
know my colleagues have been waiting, as well.
  Since the origins of the internet, the defining feature has been that 
all information--all bits, as we know it--gets the same fair shake. If 
you are a big company or a mom-and-pop ice cream shop with a website, 
your content gets to everybody's home at the same speed. That is what 
net neutrality is all about. Net neutrality keeps internet service 
providers from favoring one type of content over another.
  The market has changed since 2006 because the market for access to 
the internet has changed. Where once there were legions of dial-up 
providers and DSL resellers, we were seeing a few monopolies and 
duopolies dominating neighborhoods across the country. With their power 
to dictate where you could go and what you could see on the net, they 
had and continue to have the power to suppress those sites and those 
services that you would have chosen yourself in a free marketplace, 
driving them out of business.
  Again, to lay out what this means for people who are following this, 
that means that instead of Netflix, YouTube, or Amazon, you could be 
forced to get your video content from something called go90, whatever 
the heck that is. It certainly isn't a service that has been able to 
compete in a free internet market. But all that changes when Verizon 
can charge you more to get to YouTube or Facebook than it costs to 
reach their own service.
  Without strong net neutrality protections, AT&T might provide--and we 
always put it in quotes--``free data'' for customers streaming 
HBO. That is pretty good if you watch HBO, but without net neutrality, 
it could starve other creators and subscribers necessary to survive, 
until soon enough, as Senator Franken has pointed out in some of our 
discussions, free data is gone. That is it. Free data goes away, and 
the American consumer--which is my fear when you think about what it 
really means to somebody sitting in Minnesota at home, and I see my 
colleague Senator Merkley from Oregon as well. The free data goes away 
under what I described, and the consumer at home in Minnesota or Oregon 
is stuck with few choices at higher prices than they have today. That 
is what the loss of net neutrality means.

  I care deeply, as my colleagues do, about innovation and startups and 
small businesses. Senator Warren was eloquent on this point. There are 
going to be a lot of people who aren't a startup. They are going to 
ask: What does it mean to me? What it means--I have just walked people 
through an example--is, that typical person is going to be stuck with 
fewer choices at higher prices.
  Two years ago, Tom Wheeler, then the head of the Federal 
Communications Commission, put in place a strong framework, something 
with teeth that was enforceable, called title II of the Communications 
Act, to make sure the government, the FCC, had the tools to protect net 
neutrality.
  Chairman Wheeler, like Chairman Pai, worked for industry for much of 
his career in Washington, but rather than serve his former employers, 
Tom Wheeler said: I am going to use my experience working in the 
private sector, my experience in how companies operate, to design and 
implement constructive and effective consumer protections. What a 
contrast between the two Chairs of the Federal Communications 
Commission. Both of them are from industry. Both of them did well in 
industry. We consider it a good thing in America that we have a 
prospering private economy. Tom Wheeler used it and that expertise to 
help the public. That is not what we are seeing today.
  There isn't any need to fix what isn't broken. There are strong net 
neutrality protections in place right now. Since the 2015 rules went 
into place, our economy has grown up around this leading principle of 
equal access to information and customers.
  The day before Thanksgiving, Chairman Pai released his proposal to 
strike down the 2015 rules that ensure real net neutrality but also 
prevent States from introducing their own approach to net neutrality.
  Rather than listening to the millions of voices who spoke up on 
behalf of real net neutrality and against this proposal to allow pay-
for-play or what I really call--I say to the Senator from Minnesota--a 
trickle-down telecommunications policy, which is to just let the big 
guys make as much money as they want, and maybe something eventually 
trickles down to rural Minnesota or rural Oregon.
  Chairman Pai is going to keep pushing pay-for-play and is expected to 
ignore the will of the public and demolish net neutrality rules.
  The first key vote is tomorrow, December 14. What I have been doing 
is spending a good chunk of my waking hours--obviously, we have the tax 
issue, which is enormously important. This is enormously important, 
too, to tell the American people this is a time to make their voices 
heard. My message to the American people on net neutrality is to get 
loud. This debate is far from over.
  We know Chairman Pai plays a strong hand tomorrow--there is no 
question about that--but then it goes to the courts. Some of our 
colleagues are looking at approaches here on the floor. I want, as much 
as anything, to make sure the American people know we understand--
Senator Franken and Senator Merkley--that political change doesn't 
start in government buildings in Washington, DC, and trickle down is 
bottoms up. If ever there was an issue for bottoms up, it is net 
neutrality.
  Not only are the majority of Americans opposed to Chairman Pai's 
proposal, many of the comments solicited for input are fake. These fake 
comments have been attributed to bots and false identities or linked to 
Russian IP addresses.
  Any argument that this agency, the Federal Communications Commission, 
has a transparent process with comments from the American people is not 
true. This is not government for the people. This is government for the 
special interests.
  Just a couple of other points, and let me wrap this up so my 
colleagues can have the floor.
  Chairman Pai has been out there arguing falsely, in my view, that 
without title II protections, Big Cable will make more money and use 
those profits to invest in infrastructure. This is what I call the 
trickle-down theory about telecommunications.
  First of all, the existing regime was called title II--tough rules. 
It has not been a roadblock in investment and broadband. In fact, cable 
giants have continued to invest in broadband infrastructure even when 
strong net neutrality protections were put in place in 2015.

  Publicly available documents show that investment by internet service 
providers was 5 percent higher during the 2 years after strong net 
neutrality rules were adopted than for the 2 years prior. Comcast, for 
example, has increased its investment by 25 percent since 2013.
  Big Cable, in their own statements, show that none of the major 
internet service providers told their investors that net neutrality 
protections negatively impact their investments. That is based on 
publicly verifiable documents.
  What we have is Chairman Pai making the argument that net neutrality 
provisions with teeth are going to be pretty much the end of investment 
and sort of Western civilization as we know it. Public documents show 
otherwise.

[[Page S7989]]

Publicly available documents show otherwise.
  The FCC Chairman once claimed that a policy of voluntary net 
neutrality would be another way to go. Any talk of a voluntary solution 
to net neutrality is just nonsense.
  Allowing a net neutrality provider to follow net neutrality has about 
as much of a chance of working--there is about as much of a chance that 
the big cable companies will honor voluntary net neutrality as there is 
of getting Ava and William Wyden, my 10-year-old twins, to voluntarily 
limit the number of desserts they have at dinner. It is not going to 
happen. It is not going to happen, folks. It is not going to work for 
open and fair access to the internet; it wouldn't work with Ava and 
Will Wyden.
  On the same exact date as the Federal Communications Commission 
produced its rulemaking rollback to title II, Comcast removed the 
pledge on its website that it does not prioritize internet traffic or 
create paid fast lanes--so much for voluntary policy.
  In my view, the only way the potential of the internet can be fully 
tapped is by ensuring that one form of content is not provided a 
preference over another form of content by their internet service 
provider.
  The Trump Federal Communications Commission is barreling ahead to 
blow up this level playing field that is so crucial to innovation and 
free speech.
  I close only by way of saying that this is also a lifeline for the 
startups. Those startups are dreaming of being the next YouTube, 
Google, or eBay. This is not about Google or eBay. This is about the 
startups.
  I would be staying to hear my colleague Senator Franken make his 
remarks on net neutrality but for the fact that we are about to start 
the tax conference. I close my remarks where I opened them. Senator 
Franken has been our go-to person on these issues since he came to the 
Senate. We are so grateful he looked at this issue through the prism of 
what it means for the person without power and clout. I thank him for 
his leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Oregon, my 
friend, for his extraordinarily kind words. He, too, has been a leader 
introducing the first net neutrality bill back in 2006, before I came 
to the Senate.
  I rise to talk about tomorrow's vote at the FCC on a proposal that 
would throw out the strong net neutrality rules Americans have fought 
so hard for. They are rules that ensure that all content on the 
internet receives equal treatment from broadband providers regardless 
of who owns it or how deep their pockets are.
  Plain and simple, these rules are about ensuring that the internet 
remains the platform for innovation, economic growth, and freedom of 
expression, as it has always been.
  As I reflect on my time in the Senate, there are, of course, moments 
that stand out as particularly significant. One such moment came in 
February 2015, when American consumers and businesses celebrated the 
FCC's landmark vote to preserve a free and open internet by 
reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers under title II of 
the Communications Act.
  While I had long urged the FCC to ground net neutrality rules in the 
agency's authority under title II, it wasn't just the outcome of this 
vote that made such an impression on me then, or now, as I am looking 
back.
  The FCC's 2015 vote came after the agency received nearly 4 million 
public comments, making it the then most commented on FCC issue by a 
factor of three. The vast majority of these comments urged the agency 
to enact strong rules protecting net neutrality, protecting the equal 
treatment of all content on the internet, which has been the 
architecture of the internet since the very beginning. Americans from 
across the political spectrum organized to ensure that their voices 
were heard, and they were. This was democracy in action.
  Now, as Chairman Pai pushes forward to undo the open internet order, 
we have seen another awe-inspiring demonstration of grassroots 
advocacy. Millions of Americans from every corner of the Nation and 
background imaginable are joining the movement online and in the 
streets to ask the chairman to rethink his dangerous proposal and to 
preserve net neutrality.
  When things get tough, as they have, time and time again in the last 
year, Americans have resisted in protest. It is these movements that 
make the difference. Just look at the Republicans' failed attempt to 
repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
  Ironically, the kind of civic participation that has aspired so many 
of us in recent months and has affected real change depends, in no 
small part, on an open internet. If the Chairman ultimately has his 
way, we will be entering a world where every voice might not matter, a 
world where a handful of multibillion-dollar companies have the power 
to bury sites offering alternative viewpoints or control how users get 
their information, a world where the deepest pockets can pay for a fast 
lane while their competitors stall in a slow lane.
  See, it is because of net neutrality that people from across the 
Nation can connect with each other, share their ideas on the internet, 
and organize a community effort just like the Project Net Neutrality 
protests we have seen at Verizon stores across the country.
  I have spent nearly the entirety of my time in the Senate pushing for 
strong net neutrality rules. I have always called it the ``free speech 
issue of our time'' because it embraces our most basic constitutional 
freedoms. Unrestricted public debate is vital to the functioning of our 
democracy. Now, perhaps more than ever, the need to preserve a free and 
open internet is abundantly clear, so we can't give up now.
  Three years ago, the FCC sustained strong net neutrality rules, and 
millions of Americans voiced their support for them. The FCC must 
maintain and fully enforce the important court-tested rules that are 
already in place. Also, perhaps more importantly, the agency must 
respect the democratic process and the voices that made themselves so 
clear in 2014 and over the course of the last few months. There is just 
too much at stake.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
being such a champion on this issue, and many others, where it is a 
question of whether we have government of and by the powerful or 
government by and for the people of the United States of America. We 
have seen issue after issue after issue this year on healthcare, on 
taxes, and now on net neutrality, and I thank the Senator from 
Minnesota for his advocacy.
  Mr. President, last night we had an election. I have heard many of my 
colleagues on the Republican side say that elections have consequences. 
Now, however, we see that they are attempting to deliberately slow down 
the opportunity for the newly elected Senator from Alabama to come here 
and serve in the U.S. Senate. They took quite a different view when the 
question was a special election in Massachusetts, when a Republican 
Senator was elected to take the seat once held by Ted Kennedy. The 
Democrats concurred and the President of the United States, President 
Obama, concurred that he should be seated; that nothing should be 
jammed through in a fashion that tried to bypass the weight and opinion 
of the people of the State of Massachusetts in who would represent 
them. But this Chamber seems ready, under this majority leadership, to 
absolutely try to trample the people of Alabama, who said where they 
stand last night. This Chamber wants to deny them that voice here on 
the floor of the Senate.
  Back a few years ago, in June of 2013, there was a House election in 
Missouri, and a Republican was elected to that empty seat. Jason 
Kander, the Democratic secretary of state in Missouri, said that he 
should absolutely be seated in Missouri's Eighth District. Jason Smith, 
the candidate chosen by Missouri, was seated in the House of 
Representatives, I believe within 18 hours--within 18 hours--so the 
people of Missouri could have fair representation. So Democratic 
Senators and a Democratic President and a Democratic secretary of state 
in a Southern State said to honor the people of the United States. I 
call upon the majority leader to defend the people of Alabama and seat 
their Senator and do it under the same 18-hour standard.

[[Page S7990]]

  We are here today to talk about another example of the powerful 
versus the people. We have seen time and time again, over the course of 
the last few months, the President of the United States standing up for 
the powerful and trying to crush the people of the United States, 
trying to rip healthcare from 30 million Americans in order to give 
special benefits to the richest Americans. We have seen the President 
of the United States sign in the Oval Office a measure that would 
enable a powerful company, when in a dispute with a consumer, to choose 
the judge, to pay the judge, to promise a judge future business. What 
kind of fairness is that for an ordinary American up against a powerful 
company, where the powerful company gets to choose a judge? Yet my 
Republican colleagues voted overwhelmingly to crush the opportunity of 
an ordinary citizen versus a powerful company in a consumer dispute.
  Then we have the tax bill. The tax bill says that if you earn less 
than $30,000, you get a tax increase, and if you are in the middle 
class, 87 million of you will get an increase in your taxes. And by the 
way, we are going to give several trillion dollars to the very richest 
Americans and the most powerful corporations. It is another example of 
a bank heist on the National Treasury--our Treasury--to deliver 
benefits to the best off, to the richest in America.

  Oregon is about 1 percent of the national population. If you take 1 
percent of $1 trillion, that is $10 billion. I can tell my colleagues 
what we can do for families in Oregon with $10 billion. We can invest 
in needed infrastructure to have a stronger economy and put a lot of 
people to work with living-wage jobs. We can add teachers to our public 
school classrooms so that our classrooms offer better opportunity for 
our children to learn and to thrive. We can make college more 
affordable. We can improve our community health clinics to make sure 
healthcare is available to all, which is so critical to quality of 
life. But no. My Republican colleagues say: Let's give this money to 
the richest Americans. Let's raid the National Treasury and enrich the 
best off among us.
  That is because we have a fundamental cycle of corruption in 
campaigns that is enabling such a bizarrely inappropriate bill to ever 
get heard on the floor of the Senate. I say ``bizarrely inappropriate'' 
because our government wasn't founded to mimic the powerful kingdoms of 
Europe that govern by and for the richest. We had a vision of 
government of, by, and for the people.
  Now we have this issue of net neutrality, and once again President 
Trump and the Republicans are weighing in to crush ordinary people in 
favor of powerful corporations. The internet has become essential to 
all of us in our daily lives. We consult it to find out where to go to 
a restaurant or what movies are playing. We check the internet to find 
out what the sports scores are and what is the latest news. We order 
our airline tickets. We do so many things on the internet during the 
course of our everyday lives. Yet here is President Trump saying: We 
want to take that level playing field of fairness for consumers across 
America and let some powerful companies decide who gets to provide 
information, which websites to allow to have information and which ones 
we are going to slow down, whom we are going to put in the fast lane 
and whom we are going to put in the slow lane.
  The internet is so critical to the freedom of information. This is 
really an assault on freedom of information. It was James Madison who 
said that ``the advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only 
guardian of true liberty.'' Yet my colleagues and President Trump want 
to give powerful companies the ability to control what information is 
shared in America.
  Think of a highway. We have a highway and everyone gets to use it, 
and you can be in the slow lane if you choose because you want to save 
fuel, or you can get in the fast lane and pass somebody who is going 
more slowly. We don't have someone saying: Hey, we are only going to 
allow the richest Americans to drive in the fast lane. We are only 
going to allow the most powerful corporations to be in the fast lane. 
For the rest of you, you get to go to the slow lane. I don't care if 
there is a truck going 25 miles per hour, you are going to be stuck 
behind it unless you pay me a whole lot of money to get out of that 
lane.
  The internet for the rich and powerful is wrong, and we have to stop 
it. If the Federal Communications Commission doesn't get the message 
this Thursday, we need to overturn their rule here on the floor of the 
Senate.
  I get a chart each day showing me the calls from yesterday. Here I 
have a bar saying how many people called about net neutrality and which 
side of the issue they weighed in on. So 544 people called in favor of 
net neutrality, and according to this chart, zero people called in 
favor of powerful corporations instead controlling the internet. I have 
since been informed we did get 1 call, so let's make it 544 to 1 
instead of 544 to zero. Have you ever seen an issue where you have that 
kind of ratio of ordinary people weighing in and saying: Don't let the 
powerful take over our internet. People want a level playing field for 
consumers, a level playing field for distributing knowledge, a level 
playing field for entrepreneurs so that the new startups can compete 
with the Googles and the Amazons of our country.
  I ask you, if you had a choice between two websites last night to 
follow the election in Alabama and one was in the fast lane and could 
replenish its numbers instantly and one was going so slow that the 
numbers were going to take 5 minutes to get posted, which site would 
you have gone to? Of course you would have gone to the site that can 
update quickly. That is the point.
  We shouldn't allow powerful companies to extort Americans over the 
information flowing through the internet. It is not fair to American 
citizens. It is not fair to American entrepreneurs. It is not fair to 
the distribution of knowledge. We must defeat it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.