[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6916-S6918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 682
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today I rise in defense of net neutrality.
This week marks the 2-year anniversary of the Trump FCC's wrongheaded
decision to repeal net neutrality.
First, let's be clear about what we are discussing today. Net
neutrality is just another way of saying nondiscrimination. That is
what it is all about. It is just another way of saying that big
companies online can't discriminate against individual consumers; that
large companies can't discriminate against smaller companies and
startups; that corporations can't stifle speech online; that once you
pay your monthly internet service bill, you can go anywhere you want on
the internet without Charter or Comcast or AT&T or Verizon slowing down
or blocking your path to a website of your choosing.
Despite all this, 2 years ago this week, the Trump Federal
Communications Commission voted to throw out net neutrality at the
behest of the broadband barons. Since then, we have watched as
countless citizens, companies, and activists have continued to stand up
and demand that net neutrality be restored.
This spring, the House of Representatives took an important step in
passing the Save the Internet Act. My legislation in the Senate would
overturn the Trump administration FCC's decision and restore net
neutrality protections. In the Senate, we have already successfully
passed the same proposal on a bipartisan basis.
In April of 2018, my Congressional Review Act resolution passed in
the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 52 to 47. We debated net neutrality,
and the Senate decided to join the majority of Americans and support a
free and open internet. In that vote, we sent a message to President
Trump about what it means to have an internet free of corporate control
and open to all who want to communicate, engage, and innovate. We made
clear that this Congress won't fall for President Trump's special
interest agenda that just wants to block, slow down, or discriminate
against content online just to charge Americans more on their cable and
internet bills.
Unfortunately, the rules for a Congressional Review Act that allow
just 30 Senators to force the majority to schedule a vote is not an
option in this Congress because the right to bring a Congressional
Review Act resolution to the floor has a time limit on it, which has
now expired. So, instead, today we once again call for an immediate
vote on the Save the Internet Act.
Already, in June, our Republican colleagues failed to listen to the
voices of their constituents and blocked a vote from happening. Sadly,
the Republicans plan to stonewall us again and to block this vote. This
is yet another example of the Republican Party refusing to side with
the ordinary people in our country--families, small businesses,
startups, entrepreneurs, anyone with an idea who needs the internet to
get it off the ground.
Under Senator McConnell's leadership, the Republicans have buried
this bill in their legislative graveyard. Instead of passing
legislation, instead of acting on legislation which already passed in
the Senate in 2018 and which passed the House of Representatives this
April, Leader McConnell has done little but confirm unqualified,
extreme-right nominees for the Trump administration.
Just listen to some of the bills that Senate Republicans refuse to
act on that have already moved through the House of Representatives
this year: the Violence Against Women's Act, voting and democracy
reform, gun background checks, paycheck fairness, and the Paris climate
agreement. The answer from the Republican leadership is no, no, no, no.
That is what continues to happen. Net neutrality is part of that chorus
of ``noes'' that the Republicans aim at legislation the American people
want and need to have passed here in the Senate.
But the Senate majority leader and his Republican colleagues can keep
populating the legislative graveyard at their political peril because
this is the agenda the American people want to see the Senate debating.
They want to see these laws put on the books to protect families in
this country. The issues they are blocking are enormously popular, and
most have bipartisan support. Net neutrality is one of those issues.
The Save the Internet Act--the bill we are debating today--does
exactly what the American people want. It restores the rules that
ensure families aren't subjected to higher prices, slower internet
speeds, and even blocked websites because the big internet providers
want to pump up their profits. That is what today's fight is all about.
It is a fight for innovation; for entrepreneurialism; for the American
economy; a fight for free speech, which is the cornerstone of our
democracy; and a fight for the most powerful platform for commerce and
communications in the history of the planet.
Some will argue that since the Trump FCC ripped away the net
neutrality rules, everything has been just fine, but we are not falling
for that. As the legal challenges over this issue have taken place over
the last 2 years, internet providers have had every incentive to keep a
low profile, to keep things as they were. But ultimately, the question
before the Senate today is whether consumers trust their internet
companies to do the right thing without being told they have to. We
know that consumers rightfully don't trust the broadband barons.
It is time we do the right thing for the American people. We can
start with passing the Save the Internet Act and protecting the
internet as we know it. The American people want action now. The
Democrats are committed to fighting on their behalf. Net neutrality
just stands for nondiscrimination online. You can't be biased against a
smaller voice, a smaller company, a startup; it is not allowed. That is
what net neutrality says to all the big broadband giants--you cannot
discriminate. Net neutrality is something that is at the heart of what
the 21st century should stand for in this internet age.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
I yield to the great leader of the State of Washington, Senator
Cantwell.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from
Massachusetts, who has been a leader on this important issue of net
neutrality. I want to speak and back up what he said today about why it
is so important and that we need to fight to protect a free and open
internet, before I do, I would just like to mention that yesterday we
filed a bill dealing with trade enforcement.
The reason I bring that up is because today there is going to be a
lot of discussion about trade writ large. It is very important that in
the trade discussion, we also have trade enforcement. Much of what we
filed yesterday is what we hope to see in an agreement that is now
being unveiled, and this builds on capacity building, which is very
important. We want to make sure we have the enforcement capabilities at
USTR and now the capacity and enforcement in Mexico to make these
agreements work in the future. I look forward to discussing that with
my colleagues.
I am really here to talk about how 2 years ago, the Trump
administration, basically, with the FCC at the helm, repealed net
neutrality and put Big Cable in charge of our internet future. Despite
83 percent of all Americans and a majority of Independents, Democrats,
and Republicans supporting a free and open internet--that means making
sure they weren't charged excessive rates--the FCC chose to side with
cable companies.
Not long after, Verizon throttled the broadband service of Santa
Clara firefighters in California when they were in the midst of
fighting the massive Mendocino Complex Fire in 2018. Despite
firefighters' urgent pleas to stop
[[Page S6917]]
the throttling, Verizon refused to do so.
For those who don't understand what throttling is, we are always
concerned that without rules of the road, companies would slow down
some access to internet sites. This is so important because we don't
want an internet that is based on how much you pay for faster broadband
access.
We think that to slow down important sites like public service sites
or any sites or to base an internet on how much you pay is the wrong
direction. More importantly, we need to make sure we are policing this.
Even today, as we have no Federal agency with clear authority to adopt
hard and fast rules to keep that situation from happening again, we
need to keep fighting.
Another example is that wireless carriers have been accused of
potentially throttling subscribers to Netflix, YouTube, and Sprint and
allegedly interfering with Skype services. Again, that is another
example of why we have to keep our message about a free and open
internet no matter where we look, where we live, or where we are
accessing the internet.
It is long past time for the Senate to vote on the Save the Internet
Act--something on which our colleague from Massachusetts has been a
leader.
Our bill would restore the protections for a free and open internet
that were had by the Obama FCC in 2015, which would mean no blocking,
throttling, or paid prioritization would be allowed. The FCC would have
the flexible legal standards by which to address concerns that would
arise from these big cable companies' threats to a free and open
internet.
Again, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership--
persistent both in the House and the Senate--in stressing how important
this is.
As my colleagues know, these issues are going to be very important in
the future, not just with regard to privacy, which the Senator has also
been a leader on--and I very much appreciate that the hometown
newspaper wrote a glowing endorsement of the legislation he and I have
just recently introduced on privacy--but in understanding that in the
information age, you have to give consumers rights, that you have to
give them the right to privacy, and that you have to give them the
right to a free and open internet that is not controlled in speed and
that is not controlled by one's saying, If you pay us more, we will
give you access. This is going to be a key communication tool for the
21st century, and it needs to be open.
I thank my colleague for raising this important issue, and I will
continue to work with him and our other colleagues to make it the law
of the land.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, our ranking member on the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation has always framed the issue of
net neutrality and consumer rights appropriately.
I am going to speak for just a few minutes. Then, on behalf of our
side--on behalf of the Democratic caucus--Senator Markey, our friend
from Massachusetts, will propound a unanimous consent request. I note
that the chairman of the committee is here, and we will have a bit of
discussion.
Let me give a bit of history on this.
Senator Markey introduced the first net neutrality bill as a Member
of the other Chamber, and I introduced the first net neutrality bill in
the U.S. Senate. Right out of the gate, I think it is important for
people to understand what this issue is all about. Real net neutrality
empowers consumers. After they pay their internet access fees, they get
to go where they want, when they want, and how they want. What Ajit Pai
and Donald Trump want is something very different. They want an
internet policy that lets Big Cable get what it wants, when Big Cable
wants it, and how Big Cable wants it. That is the difference here.
Who is in the driver's seat?
Senator Markey, Senator Cantwell, and I say that this is what the
beauty of the internet has always been about, which is really simple.
The consumer is in the driver's seat. We don't have an information
aristocracy with lanes and all kinds of favoritism for the powerful and
the influential. It is where the student, the small business, and the
person without power and clout gets the same fair shake as everybody
else.
What we have said is we want to keep the consumer in the driver's
seat, and Mr. Pai and Donald Trump want a different notion of internet
freedom. What they really want to say is that internet freedom is Big
Cable freedom. That is their idea about how we ought to approach the
internet. At the end of the day, if the policy here is about letting
Big Cable rig the internet in favor of those who can afford to pay more
and shake down everybody else, people will have a choice to do that,
but that is not the choice Senator Markey and I are going to make.
Cable companies are already tricking people into buying so-called
unlimited service plans that limit their service. People have uncovered
the way they have throttled service for particular users, including for
first responders in times of emergency. Megamergers that involve
telecom and entertainment companies also limit competition and threaten
to balkanize the internet.
We are talking about fracturing the internet into small bundles that
cost big money. That is the vision the cable companies have--not net
neutrality--by which you head in a direction whereby consumers pay a
lot more for entertainment and information and small businesses scratch
their heads and ask: How in the world am I going to compete with the
big guys online? Fortunately, the courts recently said the Trump
administration can't overrule States on net neutrality.
I look forward to being in my home State of Oregon in a couple of
days and having town meetings. What I like the most is when people
speak up on issues like fairness and net neutrality, and I am going to
hear about it this weekend. Other States have policies like Oregon's as
well.
Here in Congress, on this side of the aisle--and you will see it when
Senator Markey offers his proposal in a moment--we are going to keep up
the fight to protect consumers from Ajit Pai and the Trump FCC. We
still have that vision of the original internet that Senator Markey and
I talked about when he offered the first proposal in the House and I
offered the first proposal in the Senate. What could be more simple
than putting the consumer in the driver's seat? You can say where you
want to go, when you want, and how you want. Now we are talking today--
years later--about the cable companies being able to say they are going
to decide those very issues.
I am very pleased--and I think it is very appropriate--that after
years of leadership on this issue in both the other body and in the
U.S. Senate that Senator Markey is going to speak for our caucus on
this issue and call for the Senate to pass his legislation so as to
have a truly free and open internet for the entire country.
If you don't get the Markey proposal, what you are going to see are
big cable companies that will, bit by bit, little by little, keep
ratcheting up the cost of internet access. By the way, their strategy
is to do that little by little because they are hoping nobody will ever
complain and that nobody will notice. Senator Markey and I and our
caucus have figured out that the cable companies are trying to disguise
price hikes and data limits in the end by flashing discounts on bundles
of content. What the cable people are talking about is a bad deal for
consumers, and it is a bad deal because Ajit Pai and Donald Trump want
to put Big Cable profits over the interests of the typical American.
With my full support, I appreciate Senator Markey's offering this
legislation today. In going forward, we are going to be working with
him to keep up this fight, and I look forward to the discussion.
I notice that my colleague from the end of the alphabet and my
friend, the chairman of the committee, is here, and we will have a
little back-and-forth.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I agree with every word Senator Wyden has
just spoken on the Senate floor, and I thank him for his leadership in
going back to 2006, which was when we first introduced into the U.S.
Congress legislation on net neutrality. We did it then because it was
important, and we are doing it today because it is critically
important.
[[Page S6918]]
The question is really whether the internet is going to be free and
open or whether it is going to have the principles of
nondiscrimination. Smaller voices, smaller companies, startup
companies, and individuals in our society must be protected on the
internet in the future. That is what net neutrality is all about.
We are on the right side of history on this issue. Every day that
goes by further instructs us as to how central the internet is in our
country and on the planet. Ultimately, it has to be open, and it has to
be free. It cannot have nondiscrimination built into it because a small
handful of huge companies decide they have a right to discriminate.
I thank the Senator from Oregon, and I thank our leader on the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator Cantwell of
Washington State, for their great leadership on this issue.
Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be
discharged from further consideration of S. 682; further, that the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be considered
read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, let me
disagree fundamentally with my friends on the other side of the aisle
about who is on the right side of history.
I would simply offer to my distinguished colleagues and to other
Members of the body that we need only to look at what has happened
during the past 2 years under the Ajit Pai-Donald Trump FCC and compare
it to what happened to the internet under the approach being advocated
by my colleagues today.
In 2015, President Obama's FCC ordered the imposition of title II
regulations to the internet. They called this net neutrality.
Basically, what it amounted to was a Big Government, Depression-era set
of regulations that gave bureaucrats control over virtually every
aspect of the internet. They implemented this in 2015, and investment
decreased dramatically during the next 2 years. This was the first time
in the history of the internet that broadband investment decreased
outside of the time of a recession. It was bad for the internet, bad
for the public, and bad for small businesses and startups. I wonder if
it is from this that the Save the Internet Act would save us. If they
want to save us from innovation and growth, then perhaps the Save the
Internet Act would get the job done, for we had no growth during that
time and less innovation.
Two years ago, the new FCC came in and did away with some of these
Big Government, Depression-era regulations that scared off investment,
particularly the Depression-era title II regulation, as if the internet
were going to be governed like a utility company from the 1930s and
1940s. It did away with them.
Since that time--in the 2 years of America's operating under what my
friends would end with this legislation--more Americans have been
connected to the internet than ever before. We have faster internet
speeds than ever before. Now, in States like my home State of
Mississippi and all across the great heartland of America, more rural
Americans get more internet at faster speeds.
We have two choices today--the one from 4 years ago that led to less
growth and a recession in the growth of the internet or the one from
the past 2 years, whereby we have been better off than ever before.
I will agree with my colleagues in one respect. We should have no
discrimination online, and we don't have discrimination online today.
There are no lanes, as my friends on the other side of the aisle have
said. There is no favoritism in what we are doing. We just have
prosperity and huge growth in the internet.
If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to join us in
enacting a permanent statute so we don't go back and forth between a
regime of Democratic-controlled FCCs and Republican-controlled FCCs, if
they would like to help us in that regard, statutorily place
nondiscrimination online in the law, free and open internet in the law
outside of the regulation of something that we have imposed on another
part of our economy half a century ago, then I hope they will join in
the bipartisan effort that Senator Sinema and I are participating in--
the Senate Net Neutrality Bipartisan Working Group. I would hope they
would want to join us in that regard.
We can make the statute better, but I would certainly offer to my
colleagues the facts, and the facts are that the past 2 years have been
a time of great growth of the internet. The previous 2 years, under
depression-era rules, were a time of dramatically decreased investment.
For that reason, I do object to the unanimous consent request offered
by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, what we just heard from the majority is,
in fact, a false narrative that contends that we have to choose between
broadband deployment and net neutrality, and if we don't put net
neutrality back on the books, there will be internet fast and slow
lanes. That is what is about to happen if we don't act out here on the
Senate floor. Innovation will be stifled, consumers will have to pay
higher prices, the internet will not be as we have known it in the
past.
So I absolutely feel that what just happened is a disservice to
consumers and innovators in our country; that they should be allowed to
have net neutrality as their protection, and I think, again, that we
are on the right side of history in propounding this legislation to be
brought out here, and, ultimately, today history was not served well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I would simply say in response to my good
friend from Massachusetts: Where are the fast and slow lanes? They may
happen sometimes. We have been warned for 2 years this is going to
happen. It hasn't happened.
What has happened is the greatest growth in the internet that we have
seen, as opposed to the stifled growth we had during the 2 years of
title II regulation under the Obama administration.
I want to work with them on nondiscrimination online. Everyone wants
a fair and open internet, but I think everyone also wants the great
growth we have had over the past 2 years, and we can have it with a
bipartisan bill like the one Senator Sinema and I are working on and
unlike the idea of putting us under depression-era rules.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.