Speech by Congresswoman Waters at CCIA 38th Annual Washington Caucus
May 4, 2011
Congresswoman Maxine Waters was invited to speak before the 38th Annual Washington Caucus of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) today. Unfortunately, House voting prevented the Congresswoman from being able to deliver the remarks herself. Twaun Samuel, her legislative counsel and staffer who handles issues under the jursidiction of the Judiciary Committee where she serves, including on the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, delivered the following remarks in her place:
INTRODUCTION
Good Afternoon! I am very pleased to join all of you for the Computer & Communications Industry Association's (CCIA) 38th Annual Washington Caucus. I want to thank CCIA's President & CEO Mr. Ed Black for the invitation. Although this is my first visit with CCIA, I look forward to engaging the tech industry and CCIA's members more in my work on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on IP, Competition, and the Internet. Since the start of the 112th Congress, we have covered a wide range of topics including Patent Reform, Online Internet Piracy, and Net Neutrality. However, the underlying discussion at all of these hearings has always focused on JOBS, and the types of policies and reforms that can be made to advance American competitiveness, innovation, and investment.
Indeed, many of us in Congress and the Obama Administration recognize that the tech industry will fuel the nation's economic recovery. We are already seeing a lot of market activity and investment in mobile applications, software, cloud computing, social networking, and the online video market. CCIA's members have led the world in innovation and completely changed the way Americans communicate and consume media. Of course, an open Internet has made all of this possible. While there is still much contention around a legal and policy framework for net neutrality, I know that everyone in this room has in some way benefited from an open Internet. The Internet has facilitated the deployment of new technologies and provided an alternative platform from which a diverse group of entrepreneurs has been able to compete and deliver innovative services, news, entertainment, and information to the American public. This is why I have become a vocal supporter of net neutrality.
As a statement of public policy, net neutrality promotes diversity and expresses our federal interests in maintaining a level playing field on which innovators from different backgrounds and communities can enter the market and compete. Diversity is good for innovation, competition, and the economy, and serves an important social utility. Corporate policies and investment strategies that place an emphasis on diversity bring different ideas, perspectives, and worldviews to the table that can lead to incredible, innovative breakthroughs that help to move the nation forward. In this view, when you cultivate a diverse and inclusive workforce, you open up your firm to a new world of possibilities.
Today, I would like to focus my remarks on how we can promote greater diversity in the future of American innovation and competitiveness. I will begin with a discussion on how I became involved in net neutrality, and the massive Comcast-NBC merger that prompted my interest in our nation's media and telecommunications landscape.
I will then conclude with comments on ways I believe the tech industry can forge effective public, private, academic, and community partnerships to meaningfully invest in the promotion of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education and IT/engineering careers in underserved communities. I understand that the tech industry has come under some scrutiny in recent years about outsourcing and the perception that the firms are not hiring internal U.S. talent. While it is true we need to do our part to create an effective STEM pipeline so that we can cultivate the best and brightest talent to assume positions within your firms, we do hope that wherever and whenever possible, our tech companies are actively seeking ways to invest in America and all of its potential.
NET NEUTRALITY AND OPEN INTERNET
As a vocal advocate for media diversity, I initially supported net neutrality and open Internet policies because of the potential they have to further federal interests in promoting the open exchange of diverse news and information from independent and competing media sources. Through the course of my advocacy and participation in the Federal Communications Commission's Comcast-NBC merger review and NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) on net neutrality, I have grown increasingly concerned with the level of consolidation in the media and telecommunications industries. All throughout last year, I urged both the FCC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to carefully review the merger, ensuring that if the merger was approved, it contained substantive conditions and concessions that promote media diversity, competition, and localism. I raised many of these public interest concerns in written letters and on public filings with the FCC. I also met with DOJ's Antitrust Division and wrote the agency letters detailing concerns I had for the merger's potential impact on competition in the online video market.
Although the agencies struggled to adopt significant diversity conditions – particularly the FCC – both agencies recognized the need to protect online competition, and included enforceable net neutrality conditions in their respective orders approving the Comcast-NBCU merger.
During the FCC's rulemaking proceeding, I wrote the agency commending its efforts to establish sensible guidelines to ensure that the Internet remains an open and vibrant platform for creativity and innovation. Unfortunately, in the year since the FCC set an agenda to adopt net neutrality rules, confusion and misinformation overshadowed the agency's original intent.
As a result of the immense pressure exerted on the FCC from industry stakeholders and some Members of Congress, I believe the rules the agency adopted in December are insufficient, and may actually harm many American consumers. Since the Commission's net neutrality rules exempt mobile wireless companies, we now have a dual-track regulatory framework where consumers who access the Internet on mobile wireless devices receive less protection than those who utilize wire-line service providers. I suspect that the lack of rules for wireless networks also creates uncertainty for many of you who have relied on an open Internet in developing applications and other technology for mobile devices. While the FCC's order deals with wire-line Internet service providers' potential blocking, the order does little to prevent blocking that could happen over wireless networks. What if one of your corporations developed a new mobile application that may compete with an application the wireless company wants to deploy? How would the Feds distinguish reasonable network management from anticompetitive conduct?
In my initial response to the FCC's net neutrality order, I also expressed concerns with the disproportionate impact the dual-track regulatory framework would have on minorities. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project's Mobile Access 2010 report, "minority Americans lead the way when it comes to mobile access--especially mobile access using handheld devices", and currently "two-thirds of African-Americans and [English-speaking] Latinos are wireless internet users." Under the FCC's current rules, these groups would have no protection.
However, in considering the general American public's growing use and reliance on mobile handheld devices for accessing the Internet via mobile wireless networks, I am now very concerned about the shrinking number of nationwide mobile wireless companies. While consumers have a variety of choices for portable devices – I-Phones, I-Pads, Blackberries, and Androids – consumers have limited options in nationwide mobile wireless providers. For its part, the FCC has refrained from declaring that the mobile wireless industry is "competitive."
Despite all of the debate that has commenced in Congress and among the public, there is still a lot of confusion about what the appropriate regulatory framework is for net neutrality. Most recently, some have even suggested that the FCC should not have the authority to set reasonable Internet rules, and that the issues concerning online competition and antitrust enforcement should be left to the DOJ. However, in the same manner that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) works in cooperation with DOJ to oversee financial regulations, I believe the FCC – the agency with the knowledge and subject-matter expertise in telecommunications – must be involved in ensuring that the Internet remains an open and vibrant platform for artistic expression, creativity, and innovation.
I am certain that the House Judiciary's IP Subcommittee will be hearing more from many of you on the types of considerations that must go into open Internet public policy. I look forward to those discussions.
CONSOLIDATION AND DIVERSITY
Yesterday, the Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Judiciary Committee and I had the opportunity to raise with him concerns I have had with the level of consolidation that appears to be continuing under the current Administration. Quite frankly, I do not believe excessive consolidation serves our federal interests and long-term economic stability. Consolidation is not only bad for diversity and the ability for minority and women-owned entrepreneurs and enterprises to enter the market and compete. In general, whether we are discussing the tech industry, media companies, or wireless companies, consolidation can also restrict competition, stifle innovation, and impede small businesses and startups' access to capital for investment. I think there is a case to be made that the rubber-stamped merger approvals and lax enforcement that has defined antitrust law in this country is counterproductive to forward-thinking innovation policy that could really stimulate the economy and create jobs for diverse communities. Many of the new tech giants today began as smaller start-ups. What if these companies would have been acquired before they were able to reach their potential? A diversity of industry players promotes competition, spurs investment, and creates jobs.
Congress and the Obama Administration have indicated that they are willing to work with the tech community in efforts to spur job creation. In general, I believe that Congress rewards and celebrates your success and global standing in a variety of ways. Therefore, I think it is reasonable for us to ask that you reexamine and reinvigorate how you view philanthropy, community investment, and corporate citizenship.
According to a study conducted by the San Jose Mercury News last year, the unique diversity of Silicon Valley is not reflected in the region's tech workplaces — and the disparity is growing worse. In using data collected by the Department of Labor, the San Jose Mercury News concluded that Hispanics and African Americans represented a smaller share of Silicon Valley's employees in 2008 than they did in 2000 – even as their share grew across the nation. Similarly, women in computer-related occupations saw declines around the country, but they are an even smaller proportion of the work force in Silicon Valley. This trend was also reflected in the less tech-centric roles of upper management. The study further reports that from 2000 to 2005, the number of African Americans and Hispanics in top management declined 20 percent, while the number of women in these positions declined 2 percent. An analysis by the Mercury News of the combined workforce of 10 of Silicon Valley's largest companies shows that while the collective workforce of those 10 companies grew by 16 percent between 1999 and 2005, the already small population of black workers dropped by 16 percent, while the number of Hispanic workers declined by 11 percent. By 2005, only about 2,200 of the 30,000 Silicon Valley-based workers at those 10 companies were black or Hispanic.
Clearly, we have to do a better a job, and I hope we can work together in cultivating the next generation of tech talent that more accurately reflects the country's diversity.
In the wake of the economic collapse and the devastatingly-high unemployment rate, community stakeholders have expressed concerns with what they believe to be the tech industry's collective abuse of H-1B and L-1 visa programs. In addition to public discontent, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement has held many hearings where some witnesses have further asserted that visa programs and foreign workers have empirically displaced American jobs. In contrast with these hearings, however, the Judiciary Subcommittee on IP, Competition, and the Internet has held numerous hearings and we have heard many counterarguments to that assertion. In this subcommittee, the corporate witnesses have testified that the visa programs for highly skilled foreign workers are essential, and their continued use benefits the U.S. economy. In follow-up meetings with the firms who have testified before both subcommittees, we have been told that the United States lacks the adequate intellectual capital (computer science, engineering, and IT professionals) to keep up with demand. They further explained that while certain companies have abused visa programs, the U.S. tech industry relies on highly skilled foreign workers to remain innovative and globally competitive.
Admittedly, if the United States is to increase its domestic supply of diverse IT talent, a greater number of women and minorities must be encouraged to study STEM disciplines. While utilizing H-1B visa workers may provide some short-term relief, a cooperative effort between the federal government, academia, and the tech industry must be realized in order to increase the mid-term and long-term supply of qualified and diverse computer science, engineering, and IT professionals in the U.S.
While improvements in STEM education will take time to yield results, in the mid-term, efforts to increase domestic supply of qualified and diverse tech professionals can be enhanced by training those individuals who are already skilled in computer science and engineering proficiencies. Applied training provided by corporate and academic sponsors, complemented by a community of mentors, could transition already talented workers into IT professionals. The bulk of the United States' domestic supply of highly skilled workers must come from education programs, which will require the early promotion of STEM disciplines to encourage study in these fields. As noted before, human capital is the most valuable asset for technology companies; they, along with the government and academia, need to make strategic investments in these assets proportionate to their value.
To that end, I will be hosting a roundtable discussion later this month with our nation's leading tech companies and representatives from minority business advocacy associations and the academic community. This roundtable will serve as the first phase in my ongoing efforts to seek out ways to build wealth and opportunities for women and minorities in the private sector. I do hope that you will join me in this endeavor. We all have a stake in rebuilding America's economy, and I want to ensure that our nation's future economic engine is fueled by the intellect and creativity of a diverse group of engineers and tech professionals.
Thank you.
INTRODUCTION
Good Afternoon! I am very pleased to join all of you for the Computer & Communications Industry Association's (CCIA) 38th Annual Washington Caucus. I want to thank CCIA's President & CEO Mr. Ed Black for the invitation. Although this is my first visit with CCIA, I look forward to engaging the tech industry and CCIA's members more in my work on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on IP, Competition, and the Internet. Since the start of the 112th Congress, we have covered a wide range of topics including Patent Reform, Online Internet Piracy, and Net Neutrality. However, the underlying discussion at all of these hearings has always focused on JOBS, and the types of policies and reforms that can be made to advance American competitiveness, innovation, and investment.
Indeed, many of us in Congress and the Obama Administration recognize that the tech industry will fuel the nation's economic recovery. We are already seeing a lot of market activity and investment in mobile applications, software, cloud computing, social networking, and the online video market. CCIA's members have led the world in innovation and completely changed the way Americans communicate and consume media. Of course, an open Internet has made all of this possible. While there is still much contention around a legal and policy framework for net neutrality, I know that everyone in this room has in some way benefited from an open Internet. The Internet has facilitated the deployment of new technologies and provided an alternative platform from which a diverse group of entrepreneurs has been able to compete and deliver innovative services, news, entertainment, and information to the American public. This is why I have become a vocal supporter of net neutrality.
As a statement of public policy, net neutrality promotes diversity and expresses our federal interests in maintaining a level playing field on which innovators from different backgrounds and communities can enter the market and compete. Diversity is good for innovation, competition, and the economy, and serves an important social utility. Corporate policies and investment strategies that place an emphasis on diversity bring different ideas, perspectives, and worldviews to the table that can lead to incredible, innovative breakthroughs that help to move the nation forward. In this view, when you cultivate a diverse and inclusive workforce, you open up your firm to a new world of possibilities.
Today, I would like to focus my remarks on how we can promote greater diversity in the future of American innovation and competitiveness. I will begin with a discussion on how I became involved in net neutrality, and the massive Comcast-NBC merger that prompted my interest in our nation's media and telecommunications landscape.
I will then conclude with comments on ways I believe the tech industry can forge effective public, private, academic, and community partnerships to meaningfully invest in the promotion of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education and IT/engineering careers in underserved communities. I understand that the tech industry has come under some scrutiny in recent years about outsourcing and the perception that the firms are not hiring internal U.S. talent. While it is true we need to do our part to create an effective STEM pipeline so that we can cultivate the best and brightest talent to assume positions within your firms, we do hope that wherever and whenever possible, our tech companies are actively seeking ways to invest in America and all of its potential.
NET NEUTRALITY AND OPEN INTERNET
As a vocal advocate for media diversity, I initially supported net neutrality and open Internet policies because of the potential they have to further federal interests in promoting the open exchange of diverse news and information from independent and competing media sources. Through the course of my advocacy and participation in the Federal Communications Commission's Comcast-NBC merger review and NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) on net neutrality, I have grown increasingly concerned with the level of consolidation in the media and telecommunications industries. All throughout last year, I urged both the FCC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to carefully review the merger, ensuring that if the merger was approved, it contained substantive conditions and concessions that promote media diversity, competition, and localism. I raised many of these public interest concerns in written letters and on public filings with the FCC. I also met with DOJ's Antitrust Division and wrote the agency letters detailing concerns I had for the merger's potential impact on competition in the online video market.
Although the agencies struggled to adopt significant diversity conditions – particularly the FCC – both agencies recognized the need to protect online competition, and included enforceable net neutrality conditions in their respective orders approving the Comcast-NBCU merger.
During the FCC's rulemaking proceeding, I wrote the agency commending its efforts to establish sensible guidelines to ensure that the Internet remains an open and vibrant platform for creativity and innovation. Unfortunately, in the year since the FCC set an agenda to adopt net neutrality rules, confusion and misinformation overshadowed the agency's original intent.
As a result of the immense pressure exerted on the FCC from industry stakeholders and some Members of Congress, I believe the rules the agency adopted in December are insufficient, and may actually harm many American consumers. Since the Commission's net neutrality rules exempt mobile wireless companies, we now have a dual-track regulatory framework where consumers who access the Internet on mobile wireless devices receive less protection than those who utilize wire-line service providers. I suspect that the lack of rules for wireless networks also creates uncertainty for many of you who have relied on an open Internet in developing applications and other technology for mobile devices. While the FCC's order deals with wire-line Internet service providers' potential blocking, the order does little to prevent blocking that could happen over wireless networks. What if one of your corporations developed a new mobile application that may compete with an application the wireless company wants to deploy? How would the Feds distinguish reasonable network management from anticompetitive conduct?
In my initial response to the FCC's net neutrality order, I also expressed concerns with the disproportionate impact the dual-track regulatory framework would have on minorities. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project's Mobile Access 2010 report, "minority Americans lead the way when it comes to mobile access--especially mobile access using handheld devices", and currently "two-thirds of African-Americans and [English-speaking] Latinos are wireless internet users." Under the FCC's current rules, these groups would have no protection.
However, in considering the general American public's growing use and reliance on mobile handheld devices for accessing the Internet via mobile wireless networks, I am now very concerned about the shrinking number of nationwide mobile wireless companies. While consumers have a variety of choices for portable devices – I-Phones, I-Pads, Blackberries, and Androids – consumers have limited options in nationwide mobile wireless providers. For its part, the FCC has refrained from declaring that the mobile wireless industry is "competitive."
Despite all of the debate that has commenced in Congress and among the public, there is still a lot of confusion about what the appropriate regulatory framework is for net neutrality. Most recently, some have even suggested that the FCC should not have the authority to set reasonable Internet rules, and that the issues concerning online competition and antitrust enforcement should be left to the DOJ. However, in the same manner that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) works in cooperation with DOJ to oversee financial regulations, I believe the FCC – the agency with the knowledge and subject-matter expertise in telecommunications – must be involved in ensuring that the Internet remains an open and vibrant platform for artistic expression, creativity, and innovation.
I am certain that the House Judiciary's IP Subcommittee will be hearing more from many of you on the types of considerations that must go into open Internet public policy. I look forward to those discussions.
CONSOLIDATION AND DIVERSITY
Yesterday, the Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Judiciary Committee and I had the opportunity to raise with him concerns I have had with the level of consolidation that appears to be continuing under the current Administration. Quite frankly, I do not believe excessive consolidation serves our federal interests and long-term economic stability. Consolidation is not only bad for diversity and the ability for minority and women-owned entrepreneurs and enterprises to enter the market and compete. In general, whether we are discussing the tech industry, media companies, or wireless companies, consolidation can also restrict competition, stifle innovation, and impede small businesses and startups' access to capital for investment. I think there is a case to be made that the rubber-stamped merger approvals and lax enforcement that has defined antitrust law in this country is counterproductive to forward-thinking innovation policy that could really stimulate the economy and create jobs for diverse communities. Many of the new tech giants today began as smaller start-ups. What if these companies would have been acquired before they were able to reach their potential? A diversity of industry players promotes competition, spurs investment, and creates jobs.
Congress and the Obama Administration have indicated that they are willing to work with the tech community in efforts to spur job creation. In general, I believe that Congress rewards and celebrates your success and global standing in a variety of ways. Therefore, I think it is reasonable for us to ask that you reexamine and reinvigorate how you view philanthropy, community investment, and corporate citizenship.
According to a study conducted by the San Jose Mercury News last year, the unique diversity of Silicon Valley is not reflected in the region's tech workplaces — and the disparity is growing worse. In using data collected by the Department of Labor, the San Jose Mercury News concluded that Hispanics and African Americans represented a smaller share of Silicon Valley's employees in 2008 than they did in 2000 – even as their share grew across the nation. Similarly, women in computer-related occupations saw declines around the country, but they are an even smaller proportion of the work force in Silicon Valley. This trend was also reflected in the less tech-centric roles of upper management. The study further reports that from 2000 to 2005, the number of African Americans and Hispanics in top management declined 20 percent, while the number of women in these positions declined 2 percent. An analysis by the Mercury News of the combined workforce of 10 of Silicon Valley's largest companies shows that while the collective workforce of those 10 companies grew by 16 percent between 1999 and 2005, the already small population of black workers dropped by 16 percent, while the number of Hispanic workers declined by 11 percent. By 2005, only about 2,200 of the 30,000 Silicon Valley-based workers at those 10 companies were black or Hispanic.
Clearly, we have to do a better a job, and I hope we can work together in cultivating the next generation of tech talent that more accurately reflects the country's diversity.
In the wake of the economic collapse and the devastatingly-high unemployment rate, community stakeholders have expressed concerns with what they believe to be the tech industry's collective abuse of H-1B and L-1 visa programs. In addition to public discontent, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement has held many hearings where some witnesses have further asserted that visa programs and foreign workers have empirically displaced American jobs. In contrast with these hearings, however, the Judiciary Subcommittee on IP, Competition, and the Internet has held numerous hearings and we have heard many counterarguments to that assertion. In this subcommittee, the corporate witnesses have testified that the visa programs for highly skilled foreign workers are essential, and their continued use benefits the U.S. economy. In follow-up meetings with the firms who have testified before both subcommittees, we have been told that the United States lacks the adequate intellectual capital (computer science, engineering, and IT professionals) to keep up with demand. They further explained that while certain companies have abused visa programs, the U.S. tech industry relies on highly skilled foreign workers to remain innovative and globally competitive.
Admittedly, if the United States is to increase its domestic supply of diverse IT talent, a greater number of women and minorities must be encouraged to study STEM disciplines. While utilizing H-1B visa workers may provide some short-term relief, a cooperative effort between the federal government, academia, and the tech industry must be realized in order to increase the mid-term and long-term supply of qualified and diverse computer science, engineering, and IT professionals in the U.S.
While improvements in STEM education will take time to yield results, in the mid-term, efforts to increase domestic supply of qualified and diverse tech professionals can be enhanced by training those individuals who are already skilled in computer science and engineering proficiencies. Applied training provided by corporate and academic sponsors, complemented by a community of mentors, could transition already talented workers into IT professionals. The bulk of the United States' domestic supply of highly skilled workers must come from education programs, which will require the early promotion of STEM disciplines to encourage study in these fields. As noted before, human capital is the most valuable asset for technology companies; they, along with the government and academia, need to make strategic investments in these assets proportionate to their value.
To that end, I will be hosting a roundtable discussion later this month with our nation's leading tech companies and representatives from minority business advocacy associations and the academic community. This roundtable will serve as the first phase in my ongoing efforts to seek out ways to build wealth and opportunities for women and minorities in the private sector. I do hope that you will join me in this endeavor. We all have a stake in rebuilding America's economy, and I want to ensure that our nation's future economic engine is fueled by the intellect and creativity of a diverse group of engineers and tech professionals.
Thank you.