E-Frontier Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to give notice of my intent to object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding S. 918, the E- FRONTIER Act.

In January of 2018, media reports revealed that officials in the National Security Council were considering a proposal for the Federal Government to pay for and build a national 5G telecommunications network. This proposal was then widely criticized by top administration officials, including Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow. The President himself subsequently distanced himself from the proposal and made it clear that he favored a 5G strategy that is private-sector driven and led.

In response to this controversial proposal, a Senator introduced the E-FRONTIER Act. This bill prohibits the Federal Government from constructing, operating, or offering retail or wholesale services on broadband networks absent congressional authorization.

My colleague stated the bill is intended to ``protect commercial 5G broadband networks from nationalization without authorization from Congress.'' While I agree that there is no need, at the current time, for the Federal Government to offer commercial wireless service in well-served urban markets, I do not believe that Congress should be taking any options off the table when it comes to delivering high-speed wireless broadband to rural communities that have long been ignored by the private sector.

This bill is also drafted so that its impact would extend significantly beyond its stated goal. Not only would my colleagues' proposal prohibit the Federal Government from operating commercial wireless networks without explicit congressional authorization, but it would also prohibit the government from operating wireline networks, such as fiber and cable networks.

Passing this legislation would bar the Federal Government from offering fiber-to-the-home connectivity to the tens of millions or Americans who currently have no meaningful option for high-speed broadband internet access at home. In effect, it would tell Americans in rural and low-income communities across the country that, if the private sector does not think it can make a profit offering service in their communities, that is the end of the line for them. Outside of providing subsidies, the Federal Government would be barred from addressing these market failures by contracting to build the infrastructure itself.

Time and time again, Congress has, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, maintained the critical importance of delivering broadband to all Americans, and not just those in big cities. This body should not ban any option for internet connectivity without fulsome debate and regular order.

Unfortunately, this need case is far from a hypothetical. As many as 162 million Americans across the country do not have access to internet service at broadband speeds, according to one recent analysis cited by the FCC. Congress should be passing laws that work to close this gap and not those that tie our hands as millions and millions of Americans are left behind in this new digital divide. It is an issue of fairness, it is an issue of equality, and it is an issue that must be subjected to vigorous public debate.

So I rise today with a simple and straightforward request: Before Congress limits possible broadband buildout options for decades to come, let's give my colleagues' proposal the careful consideration that it deserves. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see if we can resolve some of these outstanding issues in a manner that is fair, transparent, and timely.

For all of these reasons, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement to consider S. 918.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source