Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
QUORUM CALL BE LIFTED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MRS. HUTCHISON: MR. PRESIDENT,
TODAY'S DEBATE CONCERNS THE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER
6.
IN A LARGER CONTEXT, THOUGH, WE
REALLY HAVE BEEN HAVING THIS
DEBATE FOR 34 MONTHS.
THE THEME IS THAT THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION'S RELENTLESS
IMPOSITION OF NEW AND
DESTRUCTIVE REGULATIONS HAVE
REALLY NOT HELPED US GET INTO A
RECOVERY AND, IN FACT, I THINK
ARE FREEZING OUR ECONOMY.
WE'VE SEEN IT WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WHEN IT TRIED TO REGULATE CARBON
EMISSIONS AND GREENHOUSE GASES
USING THE CLEAN AIR ACT, A
PURPOSE FOR WHICH CONGRESS NEVER
INTENDED THE LAW TO BE USED.
WE'VE SEEN IT WITH THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD WHEN IT
OVERTURNED NEARLY A CENTURY OF
PRECEDENT AND ISSUED A NEW RULE
MAKING TO ALLOW UNIONS TO BE
FORMED MORE EASILY BUT HARDER TO
DECERTIFY.
WE'VE SEEN IT WITH THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WHEN THIS
TOOK THE SHOCKING STEP OF
CHALLENGING BOEING'S DECISION TO
CREATE NEW JOBS BY BUILDING A
NEW FACTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA,
SIMPLY BECAUSE SOUTH CAROLINA IS
A RIGHT-TO-WORK STATE.
TODAY'S ISSUE INVOLVES
BUREAUCRATIC OVERREACH INTO A
SYMBOL OF AMERICAN INNOVATION
AND CREATIVITY.
THE INTERNET -- BECAUSE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION
HAS NOW DECIDED TO REGULAT E TE
INTERNET.
LAST DECEMBER THREE F.C.C.
COMMISSIONERS ON A PARTY-LINE
VOTE VOTED TO IMPOSE RULES THAT
RESTRICT HOW INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS OFFER BROADBAND
SERVICE TO CONSUMERS.
THESE RULES KNOWN AS NET
NEUTRALITY IMPOSE 19th
CENTURY-STYLE MONOPOLY
REGULATIONS ON THE MOST
COMPETITIVE AND IMPORTANT
JOB-CREATING ENGINE OF THE
21st CENTURY:
THE INTERNET.
THIS MARKS A STUNNING REVERSAL
FROM A HANDS-OFF APPROACH TO THE
INTERNET THAT FEDERAL
POLICY-MAKERS HAVE TAKEN FOR
MORE THAN A DECADE.
DURING THE LAST 20 YEARS, THE
INTERNET HAS GROWN AND
FLOURISHED WITHOUT BURDENSOME
REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY
WASHINGTON.
POWERED BY THE STRENGTH OF FREE
MARKET FORCES, THE INTERNET HAS
BEEN AN OPEN PLATFORM FOR
INNOVATION, SPURRING BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, AND MUCH-NEEDED JOB
CREATION.
THE FORMER DEMOCRATIC F.C.C.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM CANARD STATED
IN 1999, "THE FERTILE FIELDS OF
INNOVATION ACROSS THE
COMMUNICATIONS SECTOR AND AROUND
THE COUNTRY ARE BLOOMING
BECAUSE, FROM THE GET-GO, WE
HAVE TAKEN A DEREGULATORY,
COMPETITIVE APPROACH TO OUR
COMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE,
ESPECIALLY THE INTERNET."
NOW THE PRESENT F.C.C. IS
REVERSING THAT POLICY THAT HAS
BEEN SUCCESSFUL BEYOND OUR
EXPECTATIONS.
BROADBAND INTERNET NETWORKS HAVE
POWERED THE INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRIES, WHICH
IN 2009 ACCOUNTED FOR MORE THAN
3.5 MILLION HIGH-PAYING JOBS AND
ABOUT $1 TRILLION IN ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY.
THIS INDUSTRY HAS BEEN AN ENGINE
FOR MAJOR ECONOMIC GROWTH, EVEN
DURING THESE DIFFICULT TIMES.
YET THE F.C.C.'S RULES COULD
SEVERELY JEOPARDIZE THIS
INDUSTRY'S VAST POTENTIAL.
NET NEUTRALITY IS INTENDED TO
LIMIT HOW INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS DEVELOP AND OPERATE
THEIR BROADBAND NETWORKS.
THE NET NEUTRALITY ORDER ALLOWS
THE F.C.C. TO TELL BROADBAND
PROVIDERS WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS
PRACTICES ARE REASONABLE AND
UNREASONABLE.
THE F.C.C., HOWEVER, DID NOT
BOTHER TO CLEARLY DEFINE IN ITS
RULES WHAT THE AGENCY CONSIDERS
TO BE REASONABLE.
THIS POINT IS VITAL TO
UNDERSTAND.
WITH SUCH AN ARBITRARY AND YET
POORLY DEFINED STANDARD,
COMPANIES WILL BE FORCED TO ERR
ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.
RATHER THAN RISK POSSIBLE
PUNISHMENT FROM THE F.C.C., MANY
COMPANIES WILL SIMPLY DECIDE,
MAYBE WE WON'T INVEST RIGHT NOW
IN NEW TECHNOLOGIES, MAYBE IT'S
TOO RISKY TO DEVELOP AND DEPLOY
NEW SERVICES.
AT THE VERY LEAST IT WILL DELAY
SUCH INVESTMENT.
THIS KIND OF REGULATORY
UNCERTAINTY WILL BE CRIPPLING
FOR COMPANIES AND PARTICULARLY
SMALL PROVIDERS.
WE HAVE HEARD EXACTLY THAT FROM
A SMALL WIRELESS INTERNET
PROVIDER IN BUY I WOULD CALLED
LARIAT.
THIS IS A PROVIDER THAT IS
SERVING REMOTE AREAS AND TRYING
TO EXPAND TO OTHER UNSERVED
AREAS.
LARIAT TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS
THAT THESE F.C.C. REGULATIONS
ARE ALREADY HARMING ITS ABILITY
TO ATTRACT INVESTORS, GROW ITS
BUSINESS, HIRE MORE WORKERS, AND
SERVE NEW CUSTOMERS.
FORCING BROADBAND COMPANIES TO
ASK THE GOVERNMENT FOR
PERMISSION BEFORE MOVING FORWARD
IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD TRY TO
AVOID WHEN REVIVING OUR ECONOMY.
THIS F.C.C. REGIME WILL LEAD TO
STAGNATION IN INTERNET
INNOVATION IN THE UNITED STATES,
PLACING US AT A DISADVANTAGE
AGAINST OVERSEAS COMPETITORS WHO
ARE NOT BURDENED WITH SIMILAR
RULES.
MOREOVER, INTERNET PROVIDERS
WILL END UP SPENDING RESOURCES
ON LAWYERS AND LOBBYISTS IN
ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE
F.C.C.'S RULES RATHER THAN
INVESTING THOSE DOLLARS IN
INNOVATION.
SMALL COMPANIES WILL FIND IT
EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE TO NAVIGATE
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
THIS CERTAINLY WON'T HELP
CONSUMERS, PARTICULARLY IN RURAL
AREAS AND WILL ONLY INCREASE THE
COSTS THOAF BEAR.
BEFORE ANY NEW REGULATIONS ARE
FORCED ON AMERICAN BUSINESSES,
IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEARLY SHOW,
ONE, THERE'S AN ACTUAL PROBLEM
IN A NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
THAT SHOULD BE FOREMOST.
WITH THE F.C.C. TAKING SUCH A
LARGE DEPARTURE FROM THE
AGENCY'S PREVIOUS LIGHT-TOUCH
APPROACH, ONE MIGHT THINK THE
F.C.C. COULD POINT TO A LONG
LIST OF NET NEUTRALITY
VIOLATIONS AND PROBLEMS THAT
NEED TO BE FIXED.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE.
IN A 134-PAGE REGULATORY ORDER,
THE F.C.C. SPENT ONLY THREE
PARAGRAPHS ATTEMPTING TO CATALOG
ALLEGED INSTANCES OF MISCONDUCT,
AND WITHIN THOSE THREE SHORT
PARAGRAPHS, EVERY ALLEGED
PROBLEM WAS ADDRESSED.
UNDER THE F.C.C.'S EXISTING
RULES.
OR, IF NOT, IT WAS FIXED BY THE
PROVIDER UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE
PUBLIC OR THE COMPETITIVE
MARKETPLACE, WHERE IT SHOULD BE
FIXED.
AS FORMER F.C.C. COMMISSIONER
MAYOR DEATH BAKER NOTED IN HER
STATEMENT DISSENTING FROM THE
F.C.C.'S NET NEUTRALITY ORDER,
"THE COMMISSION," SHE SAID, "WAS
UNABLE TO IDENTIFY A SINGLE
ONGOING PRACTICE OF A SINGLE
BROADBAND PROVIDER THAT IT FINDS
PROBLEMATIC UPON WHICH TO BASE
THIS ACTION."
TO PUT IT SIMPLY, THE F.C.C. HAS
ISSUED NEW RULES WITHOUT EVEN
DEMONSTRATING THAT INTERVENTION
IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY.
DESPITE PROTESTS TO THE
CONTRARY, THESE NET NEUTRALITY
REGULATIONS ON BROADBAND
PROVIDERS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE
F.C.C. AS THE INTERNET'S
GATEKEEPER, A ROLE FOR WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT IS NOT SUITED.
INNOVATION DOES NOT WORK ON A
GOVERNMENT TIMETABLE, NOR DOES
IT THRIVE THROUGH A MAZE OF
ROADBLOCKS.
IRONICALLY, SUPPORTERS OF NET
NEUTRALITY INSIST THAT PROVIDERS
ARE THE ONES WHO MAY BECOME
GATEKEEPERS OF THE INTERNET.
THESE PEOPLE SAY THE OPENNESS OF
THE INTERNET IS FAR TOO
IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT UNPROTECTED
BY THE GOVERNMENT.
THIS IS A FALSE PREMISE.
IN FACT, THE INTERNET HAS BEEN
AN OPEN PLATFORM FOR INNOVATION
SINCE ITS INCEPTION, AND IT HAS
NOT NEEDED ANY SORT OF NET
NEUTRALITY RULES FROM
BUREAUCRATS AT THE F.C.C.
AND TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE,
CONGRESS HAS NEVER GIVEN THE
F.C.C. THE EXPLICIT AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE HOW INTERNET PROVIDERS
MANAGE THEIR NETWORKS.
THAT'S WHY THE NEW RULES
REPRESENT AN UNPRESS DID NOTED
POWER GRAB BY THE UNELECTED
COMMISSIONERS AT THE F.C.C.
IN FACT, CURRENT LAW STATES --
AND I QUOTE -- "IT IS THE POLICY
OF THE UNITED STATES TO PRESERVE
THE VIBRANT AND COMPETITIVE FREE
MARKET THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS FOR
THE INTERNET AND OTHER
INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICES,
UNFETTERED BY FEDERAL OR STATE
REGULATION."
THAT'S THE LAW TODAY.
THE F.C.C. HAS LOST THIS FIGHT
ALREADY IN THE COURTS.
LAST YEAR THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS STRUCK DOWN THE
F.C.C.'S 2008 ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE
NET NEUTRALITY IN THE COMCAST
v. F.C.C. CASE.
THE COURT RULED THAT THE F.C.C.
WAS ACTING BEYOND THE REACH OF
ITS CONGRESSIONALLY PROVIDED
AUTHORITY AND CAUTIONED THAT
REGULATIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED
ONLY WITH EXPLICIT CONGRESSIONAL
DELEGATION.
THIS WAS VALIDATION THAT
REGULATORY AGENCIES CANNOT MAKE
POLICY WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL
DIRECTION.
RATHER THAN BACK DOWN, HOWEVER,
THE F.C.C. DOUBLED DOWN.
THE CURRENT F.C.C. ORDER TRIES
AN EVEN MORE EXPANSIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW THAN
WAS USED IN THE COMCAST CASE.
F.C.C. COMMISSIONERS
INEXEXPLICABLY CLAIM THE AGENCY
CAN APPLY HEAVY-HANDED
REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 7706
OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT.
THIS WAS A SECTION OF THE LAW
THAT WAS INTENDED TO REMOVE
REGULATORY BARRIERS TO BROADBAND
INVESTMENTS, NOT TO RAISE THEM.
IF THE F.C.C.'S LEGAL THEORY IS
LEFT UNCHALLENGED, THE F.C.C.
WILL HAVE NEARLY UNBOUNDED
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ALMOST
ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET.
IT IS CONGRESS'S ROLE, NOT THE
F.C.C.'S, TO DETERMINE THE
PROPER POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE
INTERNET.
OVER TIME, AND AID BY THE
CURRENT ADMINISTRATION,
REGULATORS THROUGHOUT THE
GOVERNMENT HAVE GRADUALLY TRY TO
SEIZE INCREASING CONTROL OVER SO
MANY IF A SETS OF AMERICAN
LIEVMENT IT IS TIME FOR THE
SENATE TO STOP THIS OVERREACH.
WE WRITE THE LAWS OF THIS
COUNTRY, NOT UNELECTED
BUREAUCRATS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
THANKS TO SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
HARRY REID, FORMER SENATOR DON
NICKLES AND THE GREAT SENATOR,
LATE SENATOR TED STEVENS, ONE OF
THE TOOLS CONGRESS HAS TO STOP
ROGUE AGENCIES IS THE
CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT.
THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT
ALLOWS CONGRESS TO REVIEW A RULE
BEFORE IT TAKES AFFECT AND EVEN
TO NULLIFY THAT RULE IF CONGRESS
FINDS THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE
OR IF IT OVERREACHES OR IF
CONGRESS ITSELF HASN'T DELEGATED
THIS POWER TO AN AGENCY.
AS SENATORS REID, NICKELS AND
STEVENS SAID AT THE TIME OF THIS
BILL'S PASSAGE, CONGRESSIONAL
REVIEW GIVES THE PUBLIC THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL THE
ATTENTION OF POLITICALLY
ACCOUNTABLE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO
CONCERNS ABOUT NEW AGENCY RULES.
IF THESE CONCERNS ARE
SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS, CONGRESS
CAN STOP THE RULE.
WE BELIEVE THE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE F.C.C.'S NET NEUTRALITY
RULES ARE SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS
TO WARRANT THE CONSIDERATION OF
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 6, THE
DISAPPROVAL RESOLUTION SENATOR
McCONNELL AND I INTRODUCED TO
NULLIFY THE F.C.C.'S NET
NEUTRALITY ORDER UNDER THE
CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT.
THE HOUSE HAS ALREADY PASSED ITS
VERSION OF THE RESOLUTION.
WE NEED ONLY A MAJORITY OF
SENATORS TO SEND THIS BILL TO
THE PRESIDENT'S DESK.
EVEN A NET NEUTRALITY SUPPORTER,
SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE, WHO HAS
AUTHORED NET NEUTRALITY
LEGISLATION, IS A COSPONSOR AND
SUPPORTER OF OUR RESOLUTION
TODAY.
WHILE SENATOR SNOWE AND I DON'T
AGREE ON THE NEED FOR NET
NEUTRALITY LAW, WE ARE IN
COMPLETE AGREEMENT, AND SHE
STATED BEAUTIFULLY, THAT
CONGRESS, NOT THE F.C.C., SHOULD
DETERMINE WHAT THE PROPER
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IS FOR THE
INTERNET.
IF THE SENATE DOES NOT STRIKE
DOWN THESE REGULATIONS SOON,
THEY WILL GO INTO EFFECT ON
NOVEMBER 20, FURTHER
JEOPARDIZING JOBS IN THIS
FRAGILE ECONOMY.
I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THAT IT
WILL ALLOW MORE LAWYERS TO BE
HIRED.
BUT MORE INNOVATORS?
PROBABLY NOT.
THAT IS NOT THE MIX WE NEED TO
ASSURE THAT OUR ECONOMY WILL GET
BACK ON TRACK IN THIS COUNTRY.
STUDIES INDICATE THAT NET
NEUTRALITY RULES COULD
SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT OUR
ECONOMY.
IF NET NEUTRALITY REDUCES
CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE BY EVEN 10%, IT
COULD COST OUR COUNTRY HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS OVER THE
NEXT DECADE.
WE MUST PRESERVE THE OPENNESS OF
THE INTERNET AS A PLATFORM FOR
INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH.
WE MUST KEEP THE COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE THAT WE HAVE IN THIS
COUNTRY FOR INNOVATION.
THE LAST THING WE OUGHT TO BE
DOING IS PUT RESTRICTIONS ON OUR
PROVIDERS WHEN MANY COUNTRIES
WHO ARE ALSO ADVANCED IN THIS
AREA ARE NOT DOING THE SAME THEY
THINK.
SO, WHEN WE GO TO GLOBAL
COMPETITIVENESS, YOU'RE PUTTING
OUR COMPANIES AT A DISADVANTAGE.
WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?
WE MUST STOP.
THE JOB-KELG REGULATORY -- THE
JOB-KILLING REGULATORY
INTERFERENCE BY OUR GOVERNMENT
TODAY IN SO MANY AREAS.
AND WE CAN START RIGHT HERE,
RIGHT NOW BY KEEPING THE
INTERNET FREE, VOTING FOR THIS
RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL AND
SAYING TO THE REGULATORY BODIES
IN THIS TOWN, CONGRESS MUST
AUTHORIZE A DELL TKPWAEUGS OF
AUTHORITY FOR YOUR AGENCY -- A
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR YOUR
AGENCY TO PASS RULES AND
ESPECIALLY WHEN CONGRESS IS IN
DISAGREEMENT WITH THOSE RULES.
THIS IS A KEY POLICY DECISION
FOR OUR BODY.
WE NEED TO STEP UP FOR THE
RESPONSIBILITY THAT CONGRESS
HAS.
YOU KNOW, OUR CONSTITUTION
DIVIDED THE POWERS BETWEEN THREE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
IF CONGRESS DOESN'T STAND UP FOR
ITS ONE-THIRD OF THE POWERS OF
THIS GOVERNMENT AND LETS
UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS RUN OVER
OUR PREROGATIVES, WE WILL BECOME
A WEAKER BRANCH, AND OUR
GOVERNMENT WILL BECOME WEAKER
FOR IT.
WE NEED TO HAVE THREE EQUAL
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, AND THAT
MEANS EACH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT
MUST FULFILL ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
CONGRESS MUST DELEGATE ITS
AUTHORITY EXPLICITLY FOR A RULE
TO BE MADE.
THAT IS THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION
INTENDED FOR CONGRESS TO FULFILL
ITS JOB AS THE ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE OF
OUR COUNTRY.
THE HOUSE HAS PASSED THIS
RESOLUTION.
I HOPE THE SENATE WILL TOMORROW.
I HOPE THE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK AND
SAY EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE ON THE
BASIC ISSUE OF NET NEUTRALITY
THAT IT IS NOT THE RIGHT OF THE
F.C.C. TO PASS SUCH SWEEPING
REGULATIONS THAT WILL AFFECT THE
ECONOMY OF THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT
EXPLICIT AUTHORITY FROM
CONGRESS, WHICH IT DOES NOT
HAVE.