Nomination of Nathan A. Simington

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source