Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with Respect to Regulating the Internet and Broadband Industry Practices--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support Senator Hutchison and to talk about this role that is being played now by the Federal Communications Commission in terms of regulating the Internet for the very first time.

I oppose having these bureaucrats regulating the Internet. I support the resolution of disapproval that is now on the Senate floor.

In the 2008 Presidential campaign, then-Candidate Obama made it very clear that he was for empowering Washington's bureaucracy through more redtape. The President was not looking to make Washington more efficient, in my mind, or more effective, but to make Washington bigger, to centralize power in Washington. One of his campaign promises was a new regulation called net neutrality. It appears to me that the President then appointed one of his school friends and basketball buddies to be Chairman of the FCC, possibly with this in mind.

So here we are in 2011, and it seems to me that Congress is now being asked to make a decision. I want Congress--I am asking Congress and my colleagues to reverse the course of the bureaucracy.

The administration did not even deem this rule to be what they call significant.

A significant rule is one that has an impact on the economy of at least $100 million. I believe this is a significant rule. I support Senator Hutchison in her resolution because it will keep the Internet free and open.

Republicans and Democrats agree. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution and it had bipartisan support.

Net neutrality is very real. The time to act is now. We will be voting in the next day or so, and the reason we need to act now is that the rules of having more bureaucratic government control go into effect in just a few weeks--November 20, 2011.

It does seem Congress is being disregarded. Congress has never delegated authority to the FCC to regulate in the past.

The Communications Act of 1996 had a goal, which was to ``promote competition and reduce regulations.'' In 1996, Bill Clinton was President. This is what it said--the Communications Act of 1996: The goal, to ``promote competition and reduce regulation.''

Instead, we have unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, who are ignoring Congress and voting for regulation of the Internet.

Let's look at the overall economy. Right now, we have 14 million Americans who are out of work. The number again this month is 9 percent unemployment in this country. The administration is now making it a priority--a priority--to regulate another sector of our economy over jobs.

The FCC has opened the door for Washington bureaucrats to take over one-sixth of our economy. They ought to be focusing on creating jobs, making it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs. But between health care, banking, and now technology, this administration is taking over our economy sector by sector and making it more expensive and harder for the private sector to create jobs.

The FCC's actions threaten innovation and investment in America. Regulations are the biggest burden being faced by small businesses in this country today. If you don't believe me, just ask them. The polling of small business owners has said it is regulations coming out of Washington that are their biggest burden today.

Technology pioneer and Apple cofounder Steve Jobs warned President Obama about Washington redtape. There is a new biography out about him by Walter Isaacson. He said this:

[Jobs] described [to Obama] how easy it was to build a factory in China, and said that it was almost impossible to do these days in America, largely because of regulations and unnecessary costs.

This rule we are looking at transfers the future of the Internet out of the hands of the American people, and it makes government the gatekeeper of Internet services.

Former FCC Commissioner Meredith Baker said this:

The rules will give government, for the first time, a substantive role in how the Internet will be operated and managed.

This means the future of Internet technology--whether on a smartphone, iPad or computer--will be in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.

Engineers and entrepreneurs will not be able to give us the Internet we want, at a price we want.

Former FCC Commissioner Baker also said:

By replacing market forces and technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight, we may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion.

No American wants that, but that is what this government is giving to the American people. To me, this means recent Internet service innovations such as 3G and 4G wireless speeds and new fiber networks now become riskier investments.

Less investment means every American's ability to access the Internet he or she wants may be affected. Less investment means fewer jobs.

Four months ago, President Obama realized he had a regulation problem with independent agencies such as the FCC. He issued an executive order asking independent agencies to review burdensome redtape. Instead of reviewing redtape, they have rolled out even more of it. The Presidential review has fallen woefully short.

The President asked independent agencies to produce a plan to reduce regulations within 120 days. Well, 120 days was yesterday. So the 120 days have come and gone, and what we have received once again from this President is more rhetoric and little by way of results.

If there was ever an example of an independent agency rule that needs to be put against the President's rhetoric, it is this net neutrality rule.

Net neutrality picks winners and losers. It threatens smaller and rural providers.

Brett Glass of LARIAT, a wireless Internet service provider in Wyoming, warned the FCC about the effects on smaller providers. He said the redtape will hurt his ``ability to deploy new service to currently underserved and unserved areas.''

He warns that many broadband providers are small businesses that are serving rural communities. Mr. Glass wrote:

The imposition of regulations that would drive up costs or hamper innovation would further deter future outside investment in our company and others like it.

So here we are. Americans have made it very clear that they oppose Washington worsening the Web. Over 60 percent of voters oppose Washington putting its hands on the Internet.

This regulation we are debating is a classic example of Washington trying to fix something that is not broken.

Ninety-three percent of Americans are satisfied with their broadband service. Ninety-one percent of Americans are satisfied with their broadband speed. The Internet is working remarkably well.

There is a fundamental disconnect with those in Washington who seek a more powerful bureaucracy and those at home in the 50 States of our Union who are seeking a stronger economy.

The warnings are real in Wyoming, my State, and all across this country. Congress must step in where the bureaucrats in Washington have overstepped. Senator Hutchison's resolution of disapproval should be supported on both sides of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source