[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]]
____________________