That is simplistic. The legislative branch allows the executive branch to define things like this because the executive branch can move faster, unconstrained by the politics of the legislative process. If the legislature had voted on a specific definition of broadband, it would always be out of date, because in the time needed to update the definition the technology would have already advanced. Instead the legislature performs oversight of the executive branch agencies that exercise the power they have been granted; this letter is part of the oversight process, basically the senators saying, "Hey, we intended for you to keep this definition up to date and feel you are not doing so."
It doesn’t take years to pass a bill. In fact a bill can be passed more quickly than a regulation because it just takes a few votes whereas with a regulation there are unavoidable notice and comment periods.
I’d say that your “this is necessary for efficiency reasons” model is, if not simplistic, than at least naive.
We’ve moved to a system where Congress has abdicated the legislative role almost entirely not because it is impossible for legislatures to legislate (after all some countries combine the legislature and executive) but because feckless Members of Congress have found that doing nothing except carping from the sidelines is a pretty good gig.
A bill can be passed quickly, but most bills are not. I once met with the staff of some senators (bipartisan) to explain something I had worked on to inform a bill they were pushing -- it was years ago, the bill has languished despite being pushed the entire time. One reason the bill has gone nowhere was lobbying pressure by some other companies who did not want to be forced to use the technology the bill would mandate, and that lobbying came with tons of misinformation.
Congress almost never moves quickly. Parties have grand strategies that sometimes involve stalling good legislation. Deals have to made. Ideological disagreements can spill over or supersede rational analysis. That is the nature of politics, it has been the case since the first days of the Republic and it was the case in the governments that preceded the USA.
And yet from the 1930s to the 1970s every decade had several major pieces of legislation. Laws with detailed provisions—-not just outlines to be filled in by the President. The last three major pieces of legislation were PPACA (2010), Dodd-Frank (2010, an outline not a law), and the Patriot Act (2001). Something has clearly changed from the era of the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and Clean Water Act.
In the 1930s and early 40s Congress sat around arguing, refusing to allow the US to enter the war, despite the fact that our allies were being defeated and our economic interests were being threatened (to say nothing of the moral obligation we had to save Jewish lives, particularly after turning away ships full of Jewish refugees). In all likelihood our late entry resulted in a longer, costlier war -- we had to fight for more territory and against more fortified defenses, and our allies were less able to fight alongside us after so many defeats.
Look, there is a good argument that Congress has delegated too much authority to the executive branch and some of that authority should be withdrawn. That is not the same as saying that the executive branch should not make any determinations whatsoever and should only be given exact instructions by Congress. We should always be wary of going to the extremes in either direction -- the Romans gave the executive far too much power and we would not want to repeat their mistake, but an executive with too little power would be equally disastrous for the country.
You’re not wrong but it’s a strange argument to make right now. It’s as if we had the thermostat set to 50, I make an argument we need to crank it up, and you made a long detailed argument about how it can also be set too high. Sure, let’s worry about that when the temperature hits 68.
It's more like we have several thermostats, some set too low, but you pointed to one that was set just right and said we should turn it up.
OK the analogy is a bit strained. Maybe I should just say that I do not think the authority given to the FCC to make determinations about broadband speeds is an example of Congress delegating too much authority.
Even if I were to agree, if you are going to delegate—-delegate. Delegating and then writing ineffectual letters seems like the least respectable standard operating procedure for Congress-people to adopt. It strikes me as somewhere between pathetic and contemptible.
