[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 80 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Page S2710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NET NEUTRALITY

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today our Democratic colleagues insisted 
on an aimless vote on the issue of net neutrality. This is what has 
been called by the Wall Street Journal a vague name which essentially 
is cover for regulation of the internet like a utility under the 
previous regime, which is the Obama-era regime.
  Following the FCC issuance last December of the Restoring Internet 
Freedom Order, our Democratic colleagues vowed to make net neutrality a 
campaign issue.
  To me, one of the most maddening things about the title ``net 
neutrality'' is that this is the opposite of neutrality. This is all 
about more regulation of the internet.
  Oh, by the way, I noticed that the internet seemed to be working just 
fine while this Restoring Internet Freedom Order by the FCC was in 
effect.
  How did they do this? By painting the FCC's decision as proof 
somehow--and I am not really sure how, other than maybe gullible press 
and people willing to just accept their argument at face value--that 
some of us are against net neutrality. That is just not the case.
  I believe the free market has done more to help the internet grow and 
succeed as an engine of commerce and something that allows us to 
communicate with our friends and family, share pictures and the like, 
beyond our wildest dreams. I guess Thomas Friedman's book ``The World 
is Flat'' talked about how one of the most important events in recent 
history was the development of the world wide web in 1995. We have come 
a long way since 1995, and the internet has succeeded beyond our 
wildest dreams, which is the reason the last thing we should want is 
the government to come in and inject itself with more controls.
  We have always supported a free and open internet. Internet service 
providers should not be able to block, slow, or otherwise unfairly 
discriminate against any legal website or online service. In fact, it 
was our Democratic colleagues who blocked Republicans from passing the 
bill earlier today that would have prevented the internet service 
providers from being able to do just that.
  The issue up for debate this week, though, was how to classify these 
providers for regulatory purposes, and here, there was a choice. Our 
side of the aisle has long favored a light-touch approach that is 
offered under title I of the Telecommunications Act. Our Democratic 
friends favor a more onerous approach under title II. That is why they 
favor repealing the FCC's recent order, returning to Depression-era 
regulations implemented under the Obama administration.
  Our Democratic colleagues have now gotten their wish, in a way. They 
voted here in the Senate to repeal the current FCC order by using the 
Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress the power to nullify 
agency rules and requires only a simple majority to pass. But our 
colleague, the senior Senator from South Dakota, is correct when he 
refers to their stunt as ``political theater.'' It is merely a ``show 
vote.''
  First of all, even though our Democratic colleagues may have joined 
together to win this vote on the Congressional Review Act in the 
Senate, there is simply no indication that the House plans to take it 
up or that the President would sign it if they did.
  Second, contrary to supporters' claims, the resolution will not 
``restore'' net neutrality. In fact, it would accomplish the opposite. 
This resolution would remove rightful oversight of noncompetitive 
behavior and consumer protection from the Federal Trade Commission and, 
instead, subject ISPs to oversight by the FCC, including regulations 
regarding consumer data privacy, approval or disapproval of new 
innovation, and dictating the terms and conditions of service. That 
would create a major imbalance in our internet ecosystem between 
content and platform regulation, as edge providers like Google and 
Facebook would not be subject to the same standards as broadband 
providers.

  Finally, the resolution would increase the digital divide across 
America, and that is no small matter. As Brent Wilkes, the former CEO 
of LULAC, wrote recently in the Houston Chronicle, ``the CRA would . . 
. reinstate Depression-era Title II rules that have not created the 
open internet's engine of opportunity with a level playing field that 
proponents envisioned.''
  He went on to say: ``Placing the internet back under Title II rules 
would . . . curb the critical infrastructure investment necessary for 
connecting more Americans to high-speed broadband, including nearly 4 
million Texans--about 15 percent of the state's population--who live in 
rural communities that are difficult and costlier to connect.''
  As I said when I began, I believe in an open and free internet, but 
the vote we just held does not make the internet more open or more 
free--just the opposite. Let's be blunt about it. This vote was simply 
a waste of time.
  The light-touch regulatory treatment of internet service providers 
under the December 2017 FCC order was a return to the Clinton-era 
environment that allowed the internet to innovate and thrive. Imposing 
additional, stifling government regulations does not benefit consumers 
in the long run and, instead, allows FCC bureaucrats to pick winners 
and losers. That is why I opposed our Democratic colleagues' resolution 
today.

                          ____________________