were more senators eliot aside but in some of members agree with is a note. but the question is whether they passed the immigration reform? what about unilaterally rating fell lot? the senators from texas is a former supreme court justice in texas. . . the constitution is written in a way in a divides government's authority between the executive legislative and the judicial branches. i of course agree with you that there can be no justification on the part of the president that

somehow congress hadn't acted enough or quickly enough or expansively enough to justify the extension of his authority under the constitution. but if i can ask my friend from maine another question to drill down on her earlier point it seems to me that the senator from illinois, the distinguished minority whip, he is making some suggestion that really what we are mad at is the people who benefit from this executive action which to my mind, could not be further from the truth. we all understand the aspirations of people who want a better way of life and opportunity, but isn't it true that as you have said -- and i'll just ask you to repeat it perhaps or expand upon it. isn't it true that when we all take an oath to uphold the constitution laws of the united states, whether you're the president or whether you're the senator, we have a sacred obligation to make sure that no

branch including the president usurps the authority of another branch or violates those constitutional limitations? ms. co -- ms. collins: mr. president the senator from texas who has a fine legal mind, served on the supreme court in texas is exactly right. ms. collins: and moreover, i'd like to read to you what president obama himself said about the very point that the senator from texas said about the oath that we held up our hands and took when we were sworn into this body, and that the president took when he became president. here's what the president said in july 2011 -- "i swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. now i know some people want me

to bypass congress and to change the laws on my own but that's not how our system works. that's not how our democracy functions. that's not how our constitution is written." mr. president, president obama had it exactly right when he stated that reality. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: the senator has been very patient with me. if i could just ask two final questions. given the 22 different public statements that the president of the united states has himself said about his lack of authority to do what he did in november of 2014 given the reservations publicly expressed and reported by a number of members on that side of the aisle about what the president has done and given the

fact that there are 11 democratic senators who come from states that filed a lawsuit to block the president's executive action, can you understand why that the democratic minority would try to block your amendment which would put all senators on record as to whether they agree with the president when he said that 22 times whether they agree with the court that issued the preliminary injunction and whether they agree with their own states that participated in this litigation to block the implementation of this unlawful order. can you think of any reason why they would try to block or defeat your amendment and put all members of the senate on record? ms. collins: mr. president to respond to the senator from texas, i really hope that won't

happen. i have put forth a way forward for this body. i want to ensure that the department of homeland security is fully funded throughout the fiscal year. i want to ensure that we do not overturn the 2012 daca executive order, which is narrow enough that it does not raise the very troubling issues that the senator from texas has so eloquently outlined, but i do believe it's important for us to each take a stand against the president's overreach here. this is important. this matters. it is our job to protect the constitution and to uphold our role. and that's what the -- that's

what i'm trying to do here, accomplish those three goals and that is what the senator from texas is discussing. mr. cornyn: mr. president if i can ask the senator from maine one final question. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: she has been enormously patient with me, but we're trying to drill down here and so all of the members of the senate understand exactly what the collins amendment does and does not do. and we have talked about the fact that not only are there people on record saying that what the president did was an overreach, members of the senate, 11 democratic senators who have come from states that filed suit claiming irreparable damage to their states who will have an opportunity to vote for the collins amendment hopefully here soon, but i just want to ask the senator, there is one part of what the president's executive order does that has --

to me stands out above and beyond the constitutional issues. and that is the ability of people who have committed domestic violence, child exploitation sexual abuse and child molestation to get -- somehow get kicked to the back of the line when it comes to being repatriated to their state. for example we all understand, as i said earlier that immigrants come here for a better life. we all understand that. we hoped they would come playing by the rules as opposed to not playing by the rules but why in the world would the president want to reward in effect people who have committed domestic violence child exploitation, sexual abuse and child molestation by moving them down to a second tier status of priority when it comes to

repatriation. is the senator familiar with what i am referring to and perhaps you can enlighten us further on that? ms. collins: mr. president. mr. president, i am familiar with the provision that the senator from texas refers to, and i kept it included in the bill that we will be voting on at some point and that is it seems to me that if you have been convicted -- if you are a convicted sex offender, why do we want you in this country? and the irony is, mr. president that just this week, the senate judiciary committee held a hearing on sex trafficking and we heard heart breaking stories of very young girls who have been abused by men who had been prostituted, who had been taken

from state to state coerced into prostitution, and i don't want those individuals if they come from another country, to be allowed to stay here. and all 20 of the women of the senate requested this hearing from the judiciary committee and the senator from texas and the senator from minnesota have bills that deal with this kind of human trafficking. so we are trying to send a message that these individuals should be a high priority for deportation, but i want to make clear that contrary to allegations that have been made about my bill -- and frankly it's a completely specious

amendment -- there is nothing in my bill that deprives the department of homeland security from having the authority it needs to pursue those who would seek to harm our country. those, for example, who are terrorists or belong to gangs or pose some sort of public safety or national security threat. indeed the public safety threat is -- is big enough to cover the people we're talking about but we think that they merit special mention in our bill. why would we want to keep in our country someone who is deportable, who is a sex offender who has been convicted of child molestation or domestic violence? it makes no sense.

mr. cornyn: mr. president if i could just close. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i want to thank the senator from maine for your leadership on this important amendment, and to me it's just unthinkable that senators would block a vote on the collins amendment at some point in this process this week, because what it does, as you point out is basically reinfororce what the president said himself 22 different times when he said he didn't have the authority. it reaffirms what the federal district court held in browns ville recently that 26 states filed suit on, and i share the senator's bewilderment really, at how on one hand we could be condoning people coming into the country showing disrespect not only for our immigration laws but compounding that disrespect with these heinous expenses like

violence sexual abuse and child molestation, particularly at a time when today i will report to the senator that we actually voted unanimously out of the senate judiciary committee on a bipartisan basis these antitrafficking bills that the senator testified about last tuesday. i just want to close by thanking her or the women of the senate for leading us toward passage of this antitrafficking legislation, but to point out again the complete unacceptability of this idea that somehow we're going to play games by blocking the collins amendment vote and somehow condoning the same conduct on one hand that we condemn through the passage of this antiaffecting legislation on the other, so i thank the senator. the presiding officer: the senator from maine.

ms. collins: i want to thank the senator from texas for his contributions to this very important debate. i think he helped to clarify a lot of important issues that i hope members on both sides of the aisle will consider as they cast their votes. i am for comprehensive immigration reform. i have voted that way. that is not what this is about. my bill simply prevents the executive branch from usurping the legislative power by creating categorical exemptions from the law for whole classes of people. that power belongs to congress. whether congress was wrong or whether congress was right it does not give the president the authority to write the law on

his own and that is what he has done with his november, 2014 executive order. and again mr. president let me make two other points before i will close. the first is there is nothing in my legislation that in any way in any way undoes the more limited 2014 executive order that applies to the dreamers, nothing. it doesn't prevent them from being renewed. it doesn't take away their status. there is nothing that changes that executive order. now, the first version of the house bill did and i opposed that provision and it is not in my bill.

and the second point that i will make mr. president is this debate is not about immigration. it really is about the power of the president versus the powers delineated in our constitution for congress and the judicial branch. so let me close once again with president obama's own words because he got it right back in september of 2013. he said -- "congress has said here is the law when it comes to those who are undocumented. what we can do is to carve out the dream act" -- and that's what he did with his 2012 executive order -- "saying young people who have basically grown

up here are americans that we should welcome. but if we start broadening that," which is exactly what he did in his 2014 executive order -- "then essentially i would be ignoring the law in a way that i think would be very difficult to defend legally. so that's not an option." and that is why the court struck down or stayed the implementation of the 2014 executive order.

dial-up speed answering the calls of nearly 4 million commenters who raise there voices and made a difference through civic get sometimes not always so civil discourse.

we are here to ensure every american has the ability to communicate by preferred means over the chosen platforms. as one of our greatest civil rights pioneers representative john lewis said so eloquently if we had the internet we could have done more, much more to bring people together from all over the country to organize and work together to build the beloved community. that is why it is so important to protect the internet. we cannot let the interest of profit silence the voices of those pursuing dignity. the richer ensure they're to ensure they're is only one internet. an equal chance of being seen and seen and heard. we want to enable those with

deep pockets as well as those with empty pockets. they're are many aspects of this item that i am particularly pleased to support. users of mobile devices should not be relegated to a second-class internet. we no many low-income americans rely heavily on their mobile device there only accesses the internet. they need a robust experience. i thank you for ensuring equality and erasing the mobile versus fixed distinction. containing strong and clear

rules to ensure all content applications are treated equally. these are all essential to the free market, and this is pro- competition. we must ensure companies are not able to take actions that circumvent or undermine the open internet rules whether through exemptions in the definition or at a.of interconnection. and despite the flurry of press reports earlier this week very interesting for me, i would never advocate for any policy that undermines oversight or enforcement of any open internet protections including interconnection. i am pleased this order commenced to monitor internet traffic and enables the commission to intervene if appropriate. i have also been vocal about my call to modernize the lifeline program.

which has been stuck in a time warp since 1985. this order enables the fcc to support broadband as a separate service which would help low income communities breakout of the digital darkness. [laughter] in the seemingly endless meetings with stakeholders my office has heard concerns for many signs. to sum it does not go far enough. others want a ban on access and they're are only -- there are those who advocate a band for zero rating and others you feel that it goes too far. we work closely with the chairman's office chairman's office to strike an appropriate balance and yes, it is true that significant changes were made at my office's request, including the elimination of that classification. i firmly believe that these edits have strengthened this

item. reports reports that this weakens is inaccurate. with any item in excess of 300 pages, they're may be a few issues i would have decided differently. first, i would have preferred to re- adopt the unreasonable discrimination rule and reasonable network management rules from 2010. second, i think we should tread lightly with the state's ability to adopt and implement there own universal service fund. not doing so could put a strain on the tremendous partnerships i have worked so hard to create in the state universal service fund , completely distinct from any federal program. finally, i have been struck by how much rhetoric in this proceeding is completely divorced from reality.

as a rule, i generally refrain from responding in these cases but i must address concerns about rate regulation. many of you know that reforming the inmate calling services regime has been a priority. despite clear legal authority, the fcc drag its feet for over a decade of families, friends, lawyers and clergy, paid egregiously high and unlawful fees to make a simple phone call. i bring this up today because the inmates calling proceeding represents a prime example of how the fcc resisted rate regulation for years even when consumers were subjected to blatantly unreasonable charges by providers with a clear monopoly at a severe cost to society and where they're was a clear case of market failure.

for those in a panic about rate regulation they're are millions who can testify to how i the bar is when it comes to the fcc intervening when it comes to rates and charges. i repeat this challenge to anyone willing to accept it. highlight examples where the federal communications commission has ruled that a rate is unreasonable in the context other than inmate calling aura terror investigation over the last decade. to date no one has come forth with any examples and that in another and of itself is telling. lest we forget that over 700 small broadband providers and rural america offer broadband internet access pursuant to the full panoply of title ii regulations contribute to universal

service, and amazingly this guy has not fallen. things are okay. we have not regulated rates and i am unaware of any stream of class-action lawsuits. even so, the item does assert primary jurisdiction to reduce such concerns. mr. chairman, today i support this item because i believe it provides the strong protections we need and balances the concerns raised by stakeholders for a lot -- stakeholders, both large and small. this is not a product however, of some artificial life force. a dedicated team of wireline competition and wireless telecommunication bureaus in the office of general counsel worked extremely hard on this item. they're are too many people to thank, but i would be remiss if i did not mention jonathan, stephanie, matt, claude marcus, marcus,

roger, jim joe and michael but i also must thank think two people in my office especially. louis for always being that eagle eye attorney and rebecca who worked days on end to see that night was right. i thank you very much. last but not least i would like to thank you, the american people. more than 4 million of you wait in. thank you for your amazing role in framing this historic order today because of your efforts we are better able to allow millions of americans to tell there stories, to reach their potential and to realize the american ideal. thank you very much.

>> thank you, commissioner. [applause] thank you for your leadership on this recognizing that, as mr. lewis said, every voice matters. commissioner jessica rosenworcel. >> there has been a little noise on the way to this decision today. i we will do something radical i we will be brief. our internet economy is the envy of the world. we invented it. the applications began right here on our shores. the broadband below us and the airwaves all around us deliver its collective might into our homes and businesses all across the country. what produced as dynamic engine is dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and experimentation is a foundation of openness.

sustaining what has made us innovative, fierce, and creative should not be a choice. it should be an obligation. we also have a duty a duty to protect what is made the internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. it is our printing press our town square our individual soapbox and our shared platform for opportunity. that is why open internet policies matter why i support network neutrality. we cannot have a two-tiered internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. we cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can

and cannot go online and we do not need blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization schemes that undermine the internet as we know it. for these reasons i support chairman wheelers efforts and rules today. they use our existing statutory tools, including title ii authority to put back in place basic, open internet policies that we all rely on the last year our of courts took away. the result honors the creative, collaborative, and open internet envisioned by those were there at the start including the legendary tim berners-lee. this is a big deal. what is also a big deal is 4 million voices. 4 million americans wrote this agency to make known there ideas, thoughts, and

deeply held opinions about internet openness. they lit up our phone lines client our e-mail inboxes and jammed our online comment system that might be messy but whatever our disagreements are our network neutrality i hope we can agree that is democracy in action and something we should all support. >> commissioner. [applause] thank you. what you edited out was your leadership throughout this process, your championing of open voices. we we will hear a lot up here today but the most important is one simple, short word. thank you. commissioner. >> thank you.

americans love the free and open internet. we relish of freedom to speak, post, rally, learn listen, watch and connect online. the internet has become a powerful force for freedom hear and around the. it is said to witness sad to witness the fcc's unprecedented attempts to replace that freedom with government control. it should not be that way. for 20 years there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet a democratic president and republic congress enshrined in the telecommunications act of 1996 the principle that the internet should be a vibrant and competitive free-market unfettered by federal and state regulations. dating back to the clinton administration every administration every fcc

chairman, republican and democrat, has let the internet grow free from regulation. the results speak for themselves. today the fcc abandons his policies, reclassifies broadband internet access service as a title ii telecommunications service seizing unilateral authority to regulate internet conduct to direct where isp make investments and determine what service plans we will be available to the american public. this is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have served so well over the past two decades but it is an about-face from the proposals the fcc itself may just last night. why is the fcc turning its back on internet freedom? is it because we now have evidence the internet is broken? no. we are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only president obama told us to

do so. i am asking the fcc to reclassify internet service under title ii of all law known as the telecommunications act. on november 10 president obama asked the fcc to implement his plan for regulating the internet that favors government regulation of the marketplace competition. as has been widely reported in the press the fcc has been scrambling ever sense to figure out a way to do just that. the courts we will ultimately decide the order's fate. litigants are already lawyering up to seek a judicial review and given the many glaring legal flaws they will have plenty of fodder. if this order manages to survive judicial review these we will be the consequences higher broadband prices, slower speed, less deployment, less innovation and fewer options for american consumers.

put simply, president obama's plant to regulate the internet is not the solution to a problem. his plan is the problem. this order imposes intrusive government regulations that we will work to solve a problem that doesn't exist using legal authority the fcc does not have. accordingly, i dissent. to start the commission's decision to adopt president obama's plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the internet giving the fcc the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the internet works. it is an overreach that we will let the washington bureaucracy and not the american people for some of the future of the online world. one facet is rate regulation for the 1st time the fcc we will regulate the rates that isps may charge and set a price of zero for certain commercial arrangements.

the order goes out of its way to reject calls to forbear from section 201 authorization of rate regulation and expressly invites parties to file such complaints with the commission. a government agency deciding whether a rate is lawful is the very definition of rate regulation. although the order plainly regulates rates the plan takes pains to say it is not imposing x anti- rate regulation. even the agency's suggestion that it cannot envision x anti- regulations in this context says nothing to what the future commission could envision. just as pernicious as the new conduct standard, a vague standard that gives

the fcc a roving mandate to review business models and upend pricing plans that benefit consumers. usage -based pricing plans are the current. if a company does not want to offer an inexpensive unlimited data plan, it could find itself in the fcc's crosshairs. our standard should be simple. if you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. the fcc should not take away banning never service plans we will hurt consumers especially the middle class and low income americans who are the biggest beneficiaries. the fcc we will have almost unfettered discretion to decide what business practices clear the bureaucratic bar. these won't be the last plans targeted by the agency as the electronic frontier foundation wrote two days ago, this open-ended rule will be anything but clear

and suggests the fcc believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices. in a multi factor test gives the fcc a lot of discretion potentially giving an unfair interest the parties interested parties with an insider influence. then there's the temporary forbearance. a light touch regulatory framework but it is not white and all coming with the caveat that the public is come to expect from washington dc. in addition to rate regulation, tariffs, bundling, burden some filing accounting standards and entry and exit regulation the plan. he states it is only forbearing at this time. for other rules the fcc will refrain for now. at this time for now.

to be sure with respect to some rules the agency said it cannot envision going further, but as the history of this proceeding makes clear, assurances like these don't last long. in other words, expect forbearance to fade and regulation to ratchet up as time goes on. moreover consumers we will be worse off under president obama's plan to regulate the internet and should expect bills to go up and the broadband we will be slower going forward. this is not what anyone was promised. first, broadband taxes. one avenue is the taxes and fees that will be applied and here's the background. if you look at your phone bill you would see a line item this is universal service fee. these fees are paid by

americans on a telephone service. they funnel about $9 billion to the fcc. consumers have not had to pay taxes on there broadband bill because it has never before been a title ii service, but now it is. the order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes. it repeatedly states it is only deferring the decision on broadband tax, not prohibiting. this is fatally forbearance. the fcc is already referred the question of assessing federal and state taxes on broadband to the joint board on universal service and has requested a decision by april 7 2015 right before tax day. it's no surprise many view this as a question of how, not whether to tax broadband states have already begun discussions on how to spend the extra money.

the fcc's own preferences clear. the order argues taxing broadband potentially could spread the base of contributions and could add to the stability of the universal service fund. for those not familiar, let me translate. taxing broadband would make it easier to spend more money with minimal public oversight. we have seen this gameplay before during reform of the eu rate program in july of 2014 the fcc to lobbyists it would raise the taxes after the election to pay for promises being made, and sure enough in december of 2014 the agency did just that. public reports indicated the federal government is eager to tap this knew revenue stream to spend more of consumers hard earned dollars.

when it comes to broadband read my lips, more knew taxes are coming. it is just a matter of when. second, affect on consumers slower broadband. internet regulations will work as serious harm on consumers. the record is replete with records that it will slow innovation. let's remember that broadband networks don't have to be built capitol does not have to be invested risks don't have to be taken the more difficult the fcc makes the business case for less likely it is broadband providers we will connect americans with digital opportunities. the old world offered a cautionary tale compare the broadband marketplace in the united states to that of europe where it is generally treated as a public utility.

today 80 percent of americans have access to 25 megabits per 2nd broadband speed. in europe that figure is only 54 percent. moreover average mobile broadband speeds of 30 percent faster than western europe. it is no wonder many europeans are perplexed by what is taking place at the fcc. just this week the secretary-general of the european people's party, the largest party in the european parliament observed that the fcc at the best of president obama was about to impose the type of regulation which has led europe to fall behind the us in terms of levels of investment. making all of this worse is the fact that the fcc now welcome to litigation from individual claims about the justice and reasonableness of isp pricing to sprawling class actions for violations of the knew internet conduct rule as an appropriate means of regulating the internet economy. judging from what we have

seen in the patent world, this we will be a boon for trial lawyers. what have mentioned so far are just the intended consequences of reclassification. they're are unintended consequences. the fee the broadband providers small-town cable companies to google must now pay to the.broadband using things like utility poles we will go up by an estimated 150 million to 200 million per year. reclassification we will expose many knew companies dire state and local taxes. here in washington dc companies we will face an instant 11 percent increase in taxes under gross receipts. that is a big bite that will leave a well-planned consumers wants. all of these new fees and costs add up. one independent estimate puts the total at $11 billion. every dollar spent on fees and new costs like lawyers and accountants has to come

from somewhere either from the pockets of the american consumer or project to deploy faster broadband. so these higher costs we will lead to lower speeds and higher prices. in short, less value. that is certainly not what i heard consumers wanted when i hosted the taxes for them on internet regulation in college station. the fcc's only field hearing for net neutrality where audience members were allowed to speak. internet innovators, students everyday people told me they wanted something else something that i thought had a familiar ring, competition. yet literally nothing in this order would promote competition. to the contrary reclassifying broadband would drive competitors out of business. monopoly rules designed for the monopoly era were

inevitably move us in the direction of the monopoly. president obama's plan to regulate the internet is nothing more than a kingsbury commitment for the digital age. if you like the ma bell monopoly, you will love broadband in the 21st. this is not just my view. the president's own small business administration apparently acting independently admonished the fcc that its proposed rules would unduly burden small businesses. following the president's lead the fcc ignores this admonition by applying heavy-handed title ii regulation to each and every small broadband provider, as if it were an industrial giant. not surprisingly small internet providers are worried. one of the panelists runs alamo broadband wireless isp that serves 700 people across 500 square miles

south of san antonio. he thinks it's pretty much a terrible idea. his staff is busy dealing with the loads they already carry. more staff means less fun to run the network and provide the very service the customers depend on. others feel the same way. last week 142 more joined the chorus. they deploy wireless broadband to customers who often have no alternative. they often run on a shoestring budget with just a few people to run the business, install equipment, and handle service calls. they have no ability to take on commercial giants like netflix. they say the knew regulatory intrusion into businesses will likely force them to raise prices, delay deployment expansion or both.

consider the views of 24 of the country's smallest isps, each with fewer than 1,000 residential broadband customers who said that title ii will badly strained limited resources because they're is no in-house attorney or budget line items for outside counsel. how about the 43 municipal broadband providers that flatly told the fcc that title ii will trigger consequences beyond commission's control and risked serious harm to the ability to fund a deploy broadband without bringing concrete benefit for consumers or edge providers. there is a special irony given that right before this vote the fcc voted to preempt state law regarding city-owned broadband projects. this is an incentive president obama himself announced last month. the fcc dutifully is implement it. cedar falls utility, the very municipal broadband

provider the president promoted tells us that title ii is a tremendous mistake. so what does the order tell americans whose isp isn't comcast or at&t? what does it tell those who service will be more expensive as a direct result of reclassification? what does it tell those who may lose there internet service? what does it tell those who worked for years to serve there community the community and build the business that is finally in the black? there is no explanation. there is not even an acknowledgment. there is a smug and implicit assurance that it will be that bad and you probably had it coming anyway. so the fcc is abandoning a 20 year bipartisan framework for keeping the internet free and open in favor of great depression era legislation designed to regulate ma bell but at

least we're getting something in return. the internet is not broken. there is no problem to solve that the internet works should be apparent to anyone with an apple iphone or microsoft service samsung smart tv. we live in a time where you can buy a movie from itunes, watch a music video on youtube, listen to a personalized playlist on pandora, watch your favorite novel come to life help someone make a potato salad check out the latest comic see what seinfeld has been up to, navigate bad traffic, watch and eventful fcc meeting online, and do literally hundreds of things with an online connection. at the start of this millennium we had none of this end no the federal government did not build that.

somebody else made that happen. for all intents and purposes the internet as we know it did not exist until the private sector developed it in the 90s. the commercial internet has led to the creativity innovation, frankly the engineering genius we see today. nevertheless the order ominously claims that threats to internet openness remain and argues that broadband providers all the tools necessary to defeat consumers, the great content, or disfavor content they don't like. the fcc continues to hear concerns about broadband providers regarding blocking or degrading. the evidence of these threats there is not. it is all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. if you are allowed to see this plan you would see that for yourself. a small isp in north

carolina allegedly blocked voice calls a decade ago. comcast kept bit torrent traffic. apple introduced facetime over wi-fi 1st. scattered examples are not enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. ..

>> the plan was not forged within the building. instead "the wall street journal" reports that it was developed with a unusual effort inside the white house. indeed, white house officials according to the journal unction as a parallel version and the work led to the president announcement in november of the plan for internet regulation, a plan which the report said blindsided them right chairman wheeler for the compromise. and of course a few insiders were quizzed him about what was transpiring. here's what a leader for the government-funded group fight for the feature had to say. we have been hearing for weeks from our allies that the only

thing that can stop tom wheeler from moving ahead with this sham proposal to get net neutrality is if we could get the president to step in. so we did everything in our power to make that happen. and now we get to celebrate. congratulations. and what the press has caught called opened the door to a plethora of special interest activates. fight for the future free press and public knowledge just to name a few. and indeed even before activists were blocking determine straggly late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials. what about the rest of the american people? they certainly couldn't get white house meetings. they were shut out of the process altogether. they were being played for fools. the situation did not improve when the situation announced his plan. and asked the fcc to implement

it. this differs dramatically from the proposal put out last may. that even several of them rushed in to make last-minute filings registering concerns that the fcc might be going too far. the american people to this day had been not allowed to see president obama's plan and it remains hidden. especially given the unique importance of the internet, the commissioner and i asked for the plan to be released to the public. senate commerce committee chairman john thune and house of representatives energy and commerce chairman fred upton did the same. and according to a survey last week i respected them accredit polling firm, 79% of the american people favor making this public. but still the sec has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. we have to pass president obama

317 page plan to the american people can find out what is in it. we should be an independent agency based on the record. we shouldn't be [inaudible] by the white house. and we should've released this plan to the public corporate in that impact and then there was no need for us to resolve that matter today. there is no immediate crisis in the internet marketplace that demands immediate action. the backers of the president's plan noticed, but they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand out of the light of day we know that the more the american people are aware about it, the less they will like it. that is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the white house and why it has remained hidden from public

view. these are not my only concerns this reveals what is sure to meyer the agency in the muck of litigation for a long time. i will reserve them for my statement. i quoted google's former ceo eric schmidt who once said that the internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand. this makes it abundantly clear that the sec still does not get it. the government regulation has awakened a sleeping giant and i am optimistic that we will act on today's vote with temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that had served us well. we are overturned and i do believe that the days are numbered. for all these reasons i would

like to thank the hard-working staff in my office and all of the others for the trying personal circumstances to deliver. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i have you on my scorecard so far and it's undecided [inaudible] [laughter] >> the commissioner o'reilly. >> thank you mr. chairman. i look forward to this as well. i had a chance to review some of the last statements. there is quite a critique of the link. sit back, put your feet up.

you haven't seen anything yet. and i promise that i will put my longer one in the record. today the majority of the commission this includes pursuing values and political ends, including penalty regulations and the right to impose amusing other divisions or at some point in the future. the commission advocates this wall by defining and classifying services based on unreasonable findings it fails to account stancil differences between fixed and mobile technologies and opens the door. a delegate substantial authorities to bureaus, including a case-by-case basis.

it also reinstates net neutrality rules. indeed, it seems that every bad idea in the name of net neutrality has come home to roost in this item. three public statements over the last few weeks, one might think that this is some limited way to provide support for net neutrality rules and protect consumers. a casual observer might be led to justify the means. but the means became the and and we have the title to as far as far greater expenses that months ago. and that's the that is the reality that this commission tried to hide by keeping this from the public and releasing a carefree fact sheet in its place. i am far more troubled by the dangerous court that the commission is charging on title

ii and it will have future broadband investment. as providers and consumers. the commission attempts to downplay this but make no mistake that this is not some make leave modernized life that are tailored to reserve investments protecting consumers all of the title ii applies to the back door at section 201 and 202 of the act and section 706. all of it has a virtuous cycle not actual harm to consumers. in someway this evolution is not surprising. it expresses a number of proceedings like transition, over-the-top video, symmetry, that this is attempting to bring over-the-top and other services within the reach. now the commission goes all in and subjects the foundation of

the internet. furthermore, the other providers will be gone as well. i cannot support this monumental and unlawful graphic. this is a logical of a few open ended questions in this argument is not at all persuasive. interested parties would have to divine the agency's unspoken thoughts because the final rule was surprisingly different. distant, excuse me, from the proposed rule. it effectively had no notice to the vast evolution that took place to final order. keypoint improved the scope of the newly defined service including how we relate to each other including the underlying classification reclassification of each service. including how they would reach

of these new services, including sections 202, 706 and others for other provisions. it's hard for me to believe that the commissioner was establishing net neutrality to protect against hypothetical harms. there is not a shred of evidence of any aspect of this is necessary. the dc circuit scaled-down version of this approach and it takes performing market power for repetitive invocation of the virtuous cycle. it may have been good enough when all that was at stake with net was net neutrality rules but that is no guarantee for such reasoning was standing all of title ii hanging in the balance as well. some providers may have been willing to live with net neutrality under section 706

based on nothing more than this it's an entirely different matter for title ii without concrete evidence but doing so is necessary. it also puts net neutrality rules on the firmest legal ground, the title ii is far more than a convenient legal situation, but designed to rein in the monopoly and telephone companies and it cannot be shrugged off with simple inclinations like to the extent our prior precedents suggest otherwise. and no matter what they try to do to limit the fallout it's not trying very hard to do that here. the decision is to impact investment as one analyst report wrote last week.

title ii is about price regulation with a regime that is fundamentally about price regulation in industry that the fcc has declared to be noncompetitive with future pricing power. and that includes substantially [inaudible] even a modest reduction is too great of a price to pay. and the sec gives them no reprieve from title ii whatsoever. incredibly the item is significantly to a theoretical cost to the cost of foregone investment. i am far more concerned about americans as a result of our rules. forget about open internet, they

have no internet. and not in some virtuous cycle way proving the regulatory measures. i am very concerned that the far from virtuous cycle is creating a vicious cycle for regulation and broadband and that begets more regulation to simulate competition to further deter investments. in other words, the beatings will continue until morale improves. notably than the items not only reversed the decision to treat broadband internet access as information service but also the first time that title ii applies to the entire service and not just the transmission component. as one provider put it it is a telecommunications service to multiple fusions of this act decades of commission decisions and views of all nine supreme

court justices and it also gives shape to the argument that prior decisions has an information service including serious wine interest that must be taken into account. this includes substantial factual errors and showing that the commission has advocated its role as an expert federal agency and services. the record is replete with evidence that network operators enter into interconnection relationships with this through individually negotiating private arrangements. regardless of the form they take this only serving the public indifferently, some refer to it

and have never been regulated as a common subject of title ii. undeterred by this long history the item has a novel service laundering scheme and is set to transform this action into telecommunications service by broadband internet access service. just like that it is no longer the last service. and this includes all internet traffic relationships. this approach is riddled with holes and first such interconnections has always been understood including this proceeding. second, the items does not show how this service laundering scheme is consistent. third, and there was no notice for this novel approach.

it clearly did not understand that the primary mechanism for doing so was to reinterpret broadband internet access service to include internet connection. and moreover this shift highlights the endgame it has become not just net neutrality rules in subjecting a thriving competitive regulation in the name of net neutrality trying to use a smart book and a thin line tool and a very large whale. this line will surely break. similarly this item for the first time under title ii regulation, until now the commission has followed this under section 332 of the communications act.

and this includes free from commentary regulation as a wired by the statute. today we use a sleight-of-hand to change the definition for an overnight broadband that magically falls upon title ii. in subjecting wireless broadband to this, the majority acorns fundamental differences between this and broadband industries. the wireless sector has developed and flourished in a fiercely competitive environment. consumers have ample choices and they can switch between offerings, this competition has yielded unparalleled investment and innovation and product of french and as well as retracting them attain. it's a dynamic mobile sector that defies logic.

the majority also ignores the fundamental technology and operational requirements necessary for mobile broadband networks. unlike these systems, the capacity is constrained by the scarcity of spectrum resources given this unique limitation, wireless providers must maintain the ability to get this going with wireless networks. and this will hamstring smooth functioning of these networks. some may argue that the exception for reasonable network management will allow such flexibility on a case-by-case approach whereby a wireless provider are judged after-the-fact by the commissions enforcement bureau is unlikely to provide much comfort or certainty to wireless providers finally the telecommunications service without adequate explaining rationale for the drastic change

of course and in addition there has been no meaningful opportunity for public comment on this definition. indirect contravention of congressional intent and it's not likely to survive judicial scrutiny. perhaps the most surprising and troubling aspect was the promise of her parents most of title ii. instead the item intends to provide the same protection using a few of the core title ii provisions that i retained. chiefly sections to a one, 202 and 706. in the item is quite candid about the strategy. stating that appliance section 201 and 202 enables us to protect consumers with broadband access from potentially harmful conduct both providing a basis

for this and the open statutory backstop that they provide regarding broadband providers more generally. indeed section after section the item claims to forbear from a provision and quickly points to protections and other provisions that got stiffer bearings. it allows proponents to claim it's a new modern title ii and really it only would exclude 56% directly and even then allow the inexcusably broad language of certain sections to govern. the majority seems comfortable with the suggestion that they can forbear because section 201 dozen anyway. i will highlight a few of these to make my point. to quote the item, it is our predictive judgment that the protections in section 201 and 202 of the act will be adequate

to protect the interest of consumers including the nondiscriminatory conduct that might be threatened by that actions of broadband providers they violate section to a one in 202 of the act, the open internet rules for another core access requirement. this is backdoor ratesetting authority. to quote the item again to conduct standard and are open internet rules provide important protection against production and that includes providing that service. the commission retains authority under section 201 and 202 in this requires a provider of internet access to address

interconnection issues should they arise, including evaluating broadband providers conduct that is just unreasonable on a case-by-case basis. we therefore conclude that these sections that apply with respect to providers of broadband internet access service will enable us to act to ensure that broadband providers does not refuse to provide service or interconnect. the supreme court has made clear that the agency has no power to tailor legislation by interpreting a statute to create a regulatory system unrecognizable to the congress that designed it. by engaging in a wholesale rewrite to advance its own vision to the internet. this is a modernized version of title ii and in doing so it may not exercise its authority in a manner congress gave us 40

provisions in title ii, but apparently all we need is really 151 and 201 or perhaps to put it another way, we have a new statute. moreover the commission cannot capsize the provision in favor of more general provisions, as congress had thought that sections 201 and 202 provided the authority necessary to regulate this. and additionally the fact that the agency has forbearance authorities does not justify the rewrite using this combined with forbearance authorities to cherry pick its preferred provisions of authority. as the dc circuit has explained. to further that the regulatory aims, congress provided this with the unusual authority to

forbear from enforcing provisions as well as this. during a time of regulatory transition it was not meant to be used as a tool to selectively subject new services and this includes especially troubling trend that congress started this in the state. and it's not surprising, they have art he invited greater congressional scrutiny of. and this is authority curtailed in many areas. the reality is that the bulk of this was re-conducted by case-by-case ad adjudication.

so those are mere needles in our title ii haystack. moreover rates and charges and classifications will be reviewed under the just and reasonable standards. and there will be no certainty. this includes a recipe for overreach and confusion. the item notes that parties may seek an opinion which appears useless, they are only available in certain circumstances and are nonbinding.

and although there are many caveats amongst us, the commissions path forward is clear the commission claims that this item does not require broadband providers to contribute to do response at this time. but that is because it differs that decision to pending proceedings which is likely to result on the broadband services. and this includes any intent to adopt out regulations. pressurization is a form of this regulation. the commission contemplates examining on a case-by-case basis whether they just were reasonable under section 201 and 202, that includes an evaluation with a condition of such an arrangement. the commission reviews data

allowances on a case-by-case basis. and the item intends albeit in a failed way to carve out for now transit providers and edge providers and specialized services including the readers, with a new legal framework that has left the proverbial genie out of the bottle. and it does nothing to diminished current majority. thank you mr. chairman. >> for those of you who are keeping score at home, you have seen the kind of wholesome debate that goes on every day here at this commission and gets

resolved by the democratic process of taking the vote. and so let me start towards that vote by thinking the nearly 4 million people who participated in this proceeding. you told us you were concerned about the future of the internet. her participation has made this the most open proceeding in the sec history. and now you have agreed with the action that we are going to take today, but you made it the process of the decision stronger. we listened and we learned. and i believe that is what congress intended.

and i believe that is the intention by which we operate. those comments also illustrate the importance within open and unfettered network in the role that it plays as a core of free expression and principles. and the action that we take today is an irrefutable reflection of the principle that no one whether government or corporate should control with free and open access to the internet. [applause] the internet. [applause] the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet.

it is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. and this includes the post office. the internet has read redefine commerce and entertainment and happy outpouring the internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression and the internet is simply to important to allow broadband providers to be making the rules. [applause] so let this address the important issue head on. this proposal has been described

by one opponent is a secret plan to regulate the internet. this is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. they both stand for the same concept. openness and expression and an absence of gatekeepers telling people what they can do and what they can think. the action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness. so let's make no mistake about it. this includes the technical ability and the economic incentive to impose restrictions on the internet.

as the dc circuit said in its decision remedying this to us it could ultimately inhibit the speed and the extent of future broadband deployment. but today the majority of this commission establishes that that will not come to pass. today is a red letter day for internet freedom. for consumers who want to use those getting out of their terms, for those who want a future for which there are rules to protect the internet and its users. and importantly today is also a day that gives network operators what they require as they are

there to continue to expand the broadband service in competition. the rules were fair and open internet are not old-style utility regulations but a 21st century set of rules for 21st century service. rate regulation, unbundling, have been superseded by modernize regulatory approach and has already been demonstrated to work the encouraging wireless voice network. it is important for consumers as well as companies that nothing in today's order alters the economic model for continued network expansion and this includes how it will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday.

before today the revenue enabled companies to build through the networks and nothing in what we do today changes the equation for consumer revenues to the isps for tomorrow and i believe that that is why sprint and t-mobile and hunter adjudications and google along with others have said that they are comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach and bulletin according to this morning's wall street journal and the headline cablevision ceo plays down proposal, which quotes the ceo of cablevision as saying bad we don't see at least what the chairman has been discussing as

having any real impact on our business. this is more powerful and more expensive than any previously considered suggestion it provides a one-two punch, if you will, combining title ii with a significant act. this is the fcc using all the tools in the to prevent and protect innovators and consumers to ban the prioritization, the so-called fast lane, they will not divide this into haves and have-nots, to ban blocking and consumers will get what they pay for unfettered access to any lawful

content on the internet and to ban throttling. because degrading access the legal content and services can have the same effect as blocking and it will not be permitted to exist. these are enforceable these are bright line rules. they will allow consumers to go wherever they want whenever they want. they will also protect the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission. it also includes the general conduct rules that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. any action must not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers and content providers

to use the internet. it is one thing that we can all agree upon here. and that is that we cannot possibly imagine what is going to happen next from the internet. we want to encourage that kind of innovation by making sure that there are ground rules and that the ground rules are important and that everybody knows what is expected. for the first time those ground rules will apply to wired and wireless access. mobile networks account for the vast majority of internet access. this is a critical pathway and it must be open and fair. today's order also for the first time, asserts jurisdiction

over the connections by wedge the isp plugs into the internet and the core principle there is the same as elsewhere. the internet must remain open. we will protect the values of an open internet. those in the last mile of the internet connection. so let me close where i began. with a shout out to 4 million americans who took their time to share with us their views. today history is being made by a majority of this commission as we vote for a fast and fair and open internet. with that i will call for the

vote. okay, we have it. [cheers] [applause]