[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 207 (Tuesday, December 8, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7264-S7265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Nomination of Nathan A. Simington

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in just a few moments, we will vote 
on the nomination of Nathan Simington to be a member of the Federal 
Communications Commission. We will do so in the middle of a pandemic 
when this agency is of more importance than ever to students, 
businesses, and families who are vitally dependent on broadband, on the 
consumer protection that this agency provides, and to net neutrality, 
which is a vital issue for them and for our country.
  ``Nathan Simington'' is not exactly a household word, but his name 
and his presence on the FCC will have important meaning to households 
around the Nation; nor is the ``FCC'' a household word, but it, too, 
affects literally hundreds of millions of households. The FCC will have 
an increasingly important role in this Nation as we conquer the 
pandemic and deal with the economic crisis that faces this Nation.
  There are 15 to 16 million students who are locked out of the 
internet because of the unavailability of broadband connectivity or 
devices that make the internet real in their lives. The FCC is the key 
to their participating in schools, and it is the key to businesses 
being able to communicate with customers. The FCC is at the crossroads 
of making rights real. Nathan Simington is dangerous to those rights 
and to the FCC at this moment in history.
  Why is he the nominee? The answer is that the current FCC 
Commissioner, Michael O'Rielly, was originally nominated for another 
term, and the Commerce Committee even held a vote for him in July. Yet, 
after Twitter and Facebook had the temerity to label Donald Trump's 
misinformation about voting and COVID-19, the President issued an 
Executive order that had the simple purpose of retaliating against 
these social media platforms. The President, in effect, demanded that 
the FCC revise section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in order 
to punish those companies for the mild inconvenience of a fact check. 
They didn't take down his posts; they said they needed to fact check 
them.
  Commissioner O'Rielly recognized the dangers and the potential 
illegality of the President's Executive order. Again, he had the 
temerity to speak up and tell the American public on C-SPAN that he had 
``deep reservations'' if they, meaning Congress, ``provided any 
additional authority for the FCC in this matter.'' In a later speech, 
he appeared to challenge the order on First Amendment grounds, which it 
well-deserved, in fact, because it potentially violated the First 
Amendment.
  Despite years of a pristine record of Republican positions, this 
objection now was disqualifying to Commissioner O'Rielly in the view of 
the White House. The President pulled his nomination and substituted 
Mr. Simington, who was well qualified, for he had auditioned for the 
role of doing the President's bidding. We know Mr. Simington tried to 
pressure the FCC to cave in to the White House and to rightwing media 
outlets on this very issue, section 230. It is an unprecedented assault 
on the integrity and independence of the FCC, and he was clearly the 
White House's wingman on this issue.
  Very simply, Nathan Simington is the wrong person and is clearly the 
wrong person at the wrong time for the FCC. He is unprepared and 
unqualified. Last month, before the Senate Commerce Committee, he was 
asked about his plan for the FCC. He couldn't provide one single 
measure for which he would advocate. He couldn't answer even basic 
questions from Democrats and Republicans. His answers were inadequate, 
incomplete, and evasive. I asked him again, in the questions for the 
record, to say three steps that he would take to provide and prepare 
for those millions of students who are out of the classroom and lack 
connectivity to the internet, which now is like lacking connection to 
the classroom. A student without that connectivity is, in effect, 
barred from the classroom. He

[[Page S7265]]

couldn't provide one meaningful response or step, even in writing, and 
that is plainly alarming. It should be disqualifying.
  This nomination, though, is dangerous on more than any single issue 
because it threatens the independence and political integrity of the 
FCC. The political independence and integrity of the FCC depend on its 
balance. Normally, nominations are paired politically to reflect the 
bipartisan balance of the agency. What we will have at the FCC now is 
potential gridlock.
  One month ago, voters overwhelmingly elected a new President, and he 
has promised to close the homework gap, the digital divide, to 
reinstate net neutrality, and to renew our commitment to consumer 
protection. This nomination threatens all of those goals for a new 
administration. In fact, the Senate has traditionally moved these 
nominations in bipartisan pairs, which is lacking here. In fact, it is 
contradicted by this nomination.
  I think the purpose of confirming this nominee, very simply, is to 
deadlock the Commission and undermine the President-elect's ability to 
achieve the mandate the American people have given him and his 
administration in going forward. That may be what the giant 
telecommunications industry wants. It may be what the media companies 
hope to achieve--an FCC that is absent or neutralized, an FCC that is 
gridlocked and dysfunctional. I hope it is not the result of this 
nomination if he is confirmed, but my fear is that it will be, and if 
it is, this body bears a responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee for the sake of 
those 16 million students who are now lacking in having a connection to 
the internet. That connectivity is essential to their lives and their 
educational progress. I urge this body to vote against him because he 
is dangerous to an agency that is supposed to be independent and above 
politics
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Schwartz vote begin now, some 2 minutes early.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________