[Pages S5242-S5243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             E-FRONTIER ACT

  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.

[[Page S5243]]

  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.

                          ____________________