[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 157 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6247-S6250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Las Vegas Mass Shooting

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I wish to start my remarks with my deepest 
condolences and prayers for the people of Las Vegas and for the 
families and loved ones of the victims of the worst

[[Page S6248]]

mass shooting in our Nation's history. The Nation's heart breaks that 
innocent concertgoers had to suffer such senseless violence. May you 
find the strength and love to overcome your grief, to heal, and to move 
forward.
  We owe our gratitude to the brave first responders for their efforts 
last night and to the medical professionals who are working tirelessly 
to heal wounds and save lives right now. But enough is enough. 
Americans are tired of living in fear that their community will be the 
next Newtown, Aurora, Orlando, or Las Vegas. We must act so that we do 
not become numb to this preventable carnage.
  This epidemic of gun violence in our country is not preordained. It 
is preventable. We can begin by banning these military-style assault 
weapons, like the AR-51, which are the guns of choice for those who 
seek to inflict mass casualties on civilians. These are weapons that 
belong in combat, not in our communities.
  Unfortunately, the gun lobby prevailed on Congress to let the assault 
weapons ban expire in 2004, but we need it now more than ever. We must 
also pass legislation to ensure that all gun purchases include a 
background check. Ninety-two percent of Americans support expanded 
background checks. No one should be able to purchase a gun through 
Facebook or Instagram without a background check. Instagram should not 
be ``Instagun,'' which it is in America today.
  Let's also close the gun-show loophole that allows anyone to go into 
one of these Kmarts full of killing machines and buy a gun without a 
background check. Let's close the loophole that allows domestic abusers 
to buy guns. Let's close the loophole that allows straw purchasers to 
buy guns and flood our streets with them. Let's repeal the Protection 
of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or the PLCAA, and take away the gun 
manufacturers' immunity from civil liability. PLCAA should stand for 
``protecting lives, creating arms accountability.''
  We must also recognize that this epidemic of gun violence is a public 
health emergency, and we must treat it that way. We must fully fund 
this critical research agenda at the Centers for Disease Control and 
give the CDC the resources it needs.
  We will hear lots of people say that now is not the time to 
politicize this tragedy, that talking about legislation is insensitive 
and wrong. The only thing the NRA wants more than to sell lots of gun 
silencers is to put a silencer on the debate about gun safety 
legislation. The only thing the NRA wants more than allowing nationwide 
concealed carry laws is to conceal the overwhelming support for 
background checks. The only thing the NRA wants more than to stifle 
smart gun technology is to stifle debate on gun violence protection.
  So to anyone who says having this debate now is too soon, it is 
already too late for at least 58 people in Las Vegas and the hundreds 
of others who were wounded. We should not wait another day. We need to 
pass commonsense gun safety legislation so we can hold a moment of 
silence for the NRA's stranglehold on American politics. We must make 
``NRA'' stand for ``not relevant anymore'' in American politics and in 
our country. That should be our agenda here on the floor of the Senate.
  What is wrong is leaving Americans in our communities unprotected yet 
again from gun violence. What is wrong is not having a debate and 
allowing the NRA to block sensible gun safety legislation. We must act 
so that we do not become numb to the preventable carnage for the people 
of Las Vegas and the people of Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, and 
every community in our country. That should be our responsibility now 
in this country.

  Mr. President, I wish to turn my attention to the confirmation of FCC 
Chairman Ajit Pai, the subject of today's vote on the Senate floor.
  Last week, I took to the floor to explain how, in his short tenure as 
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai has stood 
up for big corporations and ignored American consumers.
  Under Ajit Pai, the FCC now stands for ``forgetting consumers and 
competition.'' Here are the five reasons I gave.
  No. 1, on net neutrality, I explained how Ajit Pai wants to take a 
``weed whacker''--his words--to net neutrality, allowing broadband 
providers to serve as internet gatekeepers and pick online winners and 
losers.
  No. 2, on privacy, Chairman Pai has actively supported efforts to 
allow broadband providers to sell consumers' sensitive information 
without their consent, as well as eliminating requirements for those 
companies to put in place data security protections, despite the 
obvious need to protect personal information.
  No. 3, on megamergers, Mr. Pai has paved the way for massive mergers, 
which will squeeze out independent programmers and lead to higher 
prices for consumers.
  No. 4, on the E-rate, the education rate, Chairman Pai has refused to 
commit to protecting the E-rate, the most successful educational 
technology program in our country's history, which links up schools and 
libraries to the internet.
  No. 5, on the Lifeline Program, Mr. Pai has undercut the Lifeline 
Program, which provides access to voice and internet service for 
millions of low-income Americans.
  The case against Chairman Pai's nomination is clear. I want to spend 
a few more minutes today on the particularly critical issue of net 
neutrality, the chief governing principle of the internet.
  Net neutrality ensures that all internet traffic is treated equally, 
requiring that internet service providers like AT&T, Charter, Verizon, 
and Comcast do not block, slow down, sensor, or prioritize internet 
traffic.
  Today, essentially every company is an internet company. Every 
company has to deal with the digital revolution to be relevant in the 
21st century. In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds 
invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software 
companies. That is $25 billion worth of investment--half of all venture 
capital in this country. That is good.
  To meet America's insatiable demand for broadband internet, the U.S. 
broadband and telecommunications industry--the big companies--invested 
more than $87 billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is the 
highest rate of annual investment in the last 10 years. That is good.
  We have hit the sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless 
technologies is very high. Job creation is very high. Venture capital 
investment in online startups is very high. With net neutrality rules 
in place, the best ideas, not merely the best funded ideas, can thrive 
in the 21st century.
  Chairman Pai says he ``likes'' net neutrality, but then he says he 
wants to take an ax to the very order that established today's net 
neutrality rules. That is like saying you value democracy but don't 
really like the Constitution. It makes no sense. Net neutrality is the 
organizing principle of the internet.
  Chairman Pai and the ISPs--that is, internet service providers, the 
big companies--keep walking around, whispering how title II is some 
terrible word, some terrible thing.
  Let's understand how we landed here. What is title II? It gets very 
mysterious until you put it into very simple language. In 2010, the 
Federal Communications Commission attempted to put net neutrality rules 
in place without reclassifying broadband under title II of the 
Communications Act. The District of Columbia Circuit Court proceeded to 
invalidate those rules and said to the Federal Communications 
Commission: Here is how you can do it, and it will not be struck down. 
Here is a smart way for you to put net neutrality on the books, which 
will make it legal.
  So the Federal Communications Commission, in correctly reading the 
court decision, went back, and in 2015 adopted the open internet order, 
which reclassified broadband as a telecommunications service under 
title II--under this ability to regulate. They did it, and the circuit 
court of appeals upheld the rules in a 2016 decision.
  There it is: instructed by the court how to do it, follow the 
instructions, implement, done. It is now baked into the personality of 
the internet to have openness. The apertures are there for anyone to be 
able to get on, not to be discriminated against. That is what the 
internet should be like in the 21st century.
  Title II is appropriate because it was Congress's intent to preserve 
the FCC's

[[Page S6249]]

authority to forestall threats to competition and innovation in 
telecommunications services, even as those technologies used to offer 
those services evolve over time.
  We are not locked into one period of technology. As it evolves, so, 
too, does an evolution occur in terms of what openness means--the 
ability of everyone to be able to use the internet without being 
discriminated against.
  Broadband has become the single most important telecommunications 
service Americans use to transmit information to one another, and it 
has become clear that innovators, businesses, and consumers 
overwhelmingly view broadband as a telecommunications service.
  This is common sense to Americans around the country, with the only 
exception being big telecommunications lobbyists and lawyers who work 
to close this internet, who want to stop this incredible, 
entrepreneurial, democracy-enhancing set of rules that exists to ensure 
that this communications mechanism is not controlled by just a small 
number of companies.
  Ajit Pai has said that he likes net neutrality, but he thinks it 
should be voluntary. But voluntary regulations will not work. We know 
that the broadband industry--your cable, your wireless, your 
telecommunications provider--cannot regulate themselves. They struggle 
to even show up on time to install or fix your service.
  Do we really trust the broadband industry to resist leveraging their 
internet gatekeeper role and putting their online competitors at an 
unfair disadvantage? Of course not.
  Americans have made their voices heard about net neutrality. More 
than 22 million Americans have written to the Federal Communications 
Commission in the past several months, sending a clear message of 
support for net neutrality. Hear that again: 22 million Americans sent 
a message to the Federal Communications Commission that they do not 
want to see a change in the net neutrality rules for our country. Yet 
Ajit Pai will not listen. His plan will allow broadband providers to 
stifle innovation, stifle entrepreneurship. His plan will allow big 
broadband barons to crush competition, reduce choice, and then make 
consumers pay more.
  We cannot allow this to happen. That is why this vote we are about to 
take is so important. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up for 
consumers and to vote no on Ajit Pai's nomination to be the Chairman of 
the Federal Communications Commission.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
complete my remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for the 
nomination of Ajit Pai to a second 5-year term as a Commissioner at the 
Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Pai has served as a Commissioner 
at the FCC since 2012, when he was first confirmed by a voice vote in 
the Senate. He was designated as Chairman earlier this year.
  A native of Kansas, Chairman Pai has focused on the expansion of 
rural broadband and the acceleration of next-generation infrastructure 
deployment. In recent weeks, he has worked tirelessly to help ensure 
that communications services are restored to the communities that have 
been affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. In just his 9 
months since becoming Chairman, Mr. Pai has also made much needed 
reforms to improve transparency at the FCC and to improve the agency's 
processes.
  I am particularly heartened by Chairman Pai's efforts to treat his 
fellow Commissioners fairly by instituting the process of sharing 
documents with other Commissioners before discussing them publicly. 
Additionally, under Chairman Pai's leadership, the public is now able 
to view the text of all agenda items in advance of Commission hearings.
  With respect to the thorny issue of internet regulations, I am 
pleased Chairman Pai has sought to hit the reset button on the 2015 
title II order because, as I had previously said, the FCC should do 
what is necessary to rebalance its regulatory posture under current 
law. At the same time, I continue to believe the best way to provide 
long-term protections for the internet is for Congress to pass 
bipartisan legislation.
  Rather than prolonging the back-and-forth debate on this issue, I, 
once again, invite my colleagues to work with me to find a lasting 
legislative solution that will resolve the dispute over net neutrality 
once and for all.
  As for the nomination before us, I can think of no better pick to 
lead the FCC as it works to address a host of issues at the heart of 
our interconnected economy. As I noted at the outset, Chairman Pai has 
already made much needed reforms to improve the processes at the FCC 
that empower fellow Commissioners. He has already shown a commitment to 
ensuring transparency and openness at the Commission. That gives me 
great confidence in the direction he will lead the agency.
  Chairman Pai's approach, I believe, will lead to more long-lasting 
and positive results at the FCC. That is why I believe the elevation of 
Ajit Pai to be the Chairman of the Commission is a much needed breath 
of fresh air and why I believe he should be confirmed promptly and 
without further delay. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Pai 
nomination?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. 
Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez 
Masto), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--41

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cochran
     Cortez Masto
     Heller
     McCain
     Menendez
     Sanders
     Toomey
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The Senator from Arizona.

[[Page S6250]]

  

                          ____________________