[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2581-S2586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Net Neutrality
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, to you and all of my colleagues on the
floor this afternoon, we are about to have a huge debate in this
country. We are taking to the floor as a chorus of Americans across the
Nation are going to go to the phones and their devices to support our
principle of net neutrality in this country.
We are speaking out because the American people know the internet is
the most powerful platform for commerce and communications in the
history of the planet. They know the internet is for everyone and was
invented with the guiding principle of nondiscrimination. The internet
is designed to democratize access to information, to opportunity. They
know the health of our economy, our civic life, our educational system,
and so many other parts of today's American experience all depend on
the internet being free and open to everyone, not just those who can
afford Big Telecom's price of admission. They know strong, clear, and
enforceable net neutrality rules are the only way to protect the
internet as we know it. That is why an overwhelming 86 percent of
Americans oppose the Federal Communications Commission's decision last
December to repeal net neutrality rules.
Outside of Washington, this isn't a partisan issue at all. In fact,
82 percent of Republicans oppose the net neutrality repeal. In a time
when we hear so much about what divides us and how we differ, net
neutrality is something nearly all Americans agree on. It should be a
bipartisan bright spot. Yet, in December, the Trump administration
eliminated the very rules that prevent your internet service provider--
Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Charter, and others--from indiscriminately
charging more for internet fast lanes, slowing down websites, blocking
websites, and making it harder and maybe even impossible for inventors,
entrepreneurs, and small businesses--the lifeblood of the American
economy--to connect to the internet.
Why did they do this? The reason is simple. The Trump administration,
time and again, sides with the rich and the powerful first and
consumers last. From the GOP tax scam to the repeal of the Affordable
Care Act, to rolling back fuel economy standards, and to net
neutrality, this administration has repeatedly ignored the needs of
everyday American families. A free and open internet means an internet
free from corporate control and open to anyone who wants to connect,
communicate, or innovate.
That is why, today, the 49 Members of the Senate Democratic caucus
are officially filing this discharge petition to force a vote on my
Congressional Review Act resolution, which will put net neutrality back
on the books as the rule of law for the United States. This resolution
would fully restore the rules that ensure Americans aren't subject to
higher prices, slower internet trafficking, and even blocked websites
because the big internet service providers want to pump up their
profits.
How does all of this work? First, my CRA resolution will reinstate
the rule against blocking. For example, without this protection, AT&T
could stop you from visiting your favorite streaming platform, so your
only option is their DIRECTV NOW service. Verizon could prohibit you
from using Skype, so you have to use their phone service. That is bad
for competition and innovation, and it is very bad for consumers.
Second, my CRA--Congressional Review Act--resolution will restore the
rule against throttling. Without this protection, broadband companies
could slow down any website they want. If activists take to Twitter to
share stories about unfair labor practices at an internet service
provider, for example, that company could slow down the social media
platform to protect its public image and limit the spread of
information. Imagine what that could do during a Trump administration
that is stifling science, undermining law enforcement, and questioning
intelligence. The prospects are Orwellian.
Third, my Congressional Review Act resolution will restore the rule
prohibiting paid prioritization. Without this rule, internet providers
could charge large established websites for access to an internet fast
lane--meaning those websites would load quicker, while websites that
can't afford the internet ``E-ZPass'' will load at a bumper-to-bumper
pace. Small businesses that rely on fast internet service would be
dwarfed by corporate competitors who could afford the faster service.
This would spell doom for mom-and-pop businesses that are the backbone
of our communities.
Finally, my Congressional Review Act will restore the forward-looking
general conduct rule. When the FCC eliminated this guideline, it
removed protection against future harms, such as arbitrary data caps
and other discriminatory behavior by internet service providers. So
don't be fooled by the voices that say this is all doom and gloom and
that the internet service providers would never let this happen. Mark
my words, without net neutrality, these are not alarmist and
hypothetical harms--they are very real. In a world without net
neutrality, they very well may become the new normal.
This is a historic moment. We are approaching the most important vote
for the internet in the history of the Senate. Should the Senate
resolution pass, it will be the first time in more than a decade a
minority party-sponsored Congressional Review Act resolution will have
overturned a majority party administration's rule. We can and should
put President Trump on notice. Countless Americans have called and
emailed Congress to express support for net neutrality and for my CRA
resolution.
All one has to do is look at the internet today--to this ``red alert
for net neutrality'' that is on dozens and dozens and dozens of
companies' websites all across our country. These are smaller
companies, not the big companies that are all saying the same thing,
which is that they need net neutrality, that they need to be protected,
that they don't want to have the large companies being able to act in a
discriminatory way. Those companies--Reddit, TripAdvisor, Etsy, Vimeo,
Tumblr, match.com, and so many others--all speak with one voice. They
are saying: Do not allow discriminatory practices to be made legal. Put
the old net neutrality rules back on the books. They were working.
Activity in support of net neutrality at the State level has also
been remarkable in that Governors in five States have issued executive
orders; attorneys general in 23 States have filed lawsuits; 27 State
legislatures are working on legislation to protect net neutrality.
We all know that in 2018, access to a free and open internet is not
just a privilege, it is a right. I knew that back in 2006, when I
introduced the very first net neutrality legislation in the House of
Representatives. Ron Wyden knew the very same thing when he introduced
the same legislation in the Senate. It is a debate that has been
[[Page S2582]]
taking place in our country now for an internet generation, going back
12, 13 years. It is what binds the millennials, teachers, librarians,
entrepreneurs, medical professionals, social advocates, generations X,
Y, and Z--all of these groups that are up in arms because the future of
the internet is at stake.
To my colleagues across the aisle, I encourage them to seize this
opportunity and stand with the American people, who overwhelmingly
support net neutrality. Again, 86 percent of all Americans--82 percent
of all Republicans across the country--support net neutrality.
By passing this resolution, we send a clear message to American
families that we support them, not President Trump's special interest
agenda. This is the issue of whether we are going to empower ordinary
families and ordinary small businesses to be given the protections they
need.
The American people are watching closely. They are paying attention
to who is fighting for them and who is sitting on the sidelines, to who
is listening and who is ignoring the public's demands. This vote is
coming, and when it does, it will put a magnifying glass on Congress.
It will be crystal clear who is protecting corporate buddies and who is
fighting for everyday Americans.
The Senate has a job to do. I urge my colleagues to join this
movement and stand on the right side of history. In the 20th century,
the rural electrification process connected huge parts of our country
to the benefits of electricity. It raised living standards. It expanded
educational opportunities. It transformed society. That is what a free
and open internet is doing for our country in the 21st century--job
creation, small business development, social justice, distance
education. Every day, the lives of Americans are transformed for the
better because they can access this diverse, dynamic, democratic
platform where history is made every single day.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this Congressional Review
Act resolution to restore net neutrality.
I will now file this discharge petition with the clerk of the Senate
so we can begin the process of having this historic debate on the floor
of the U.S. Senate.
I thank all of my colleagues who are going to participate in this
discussion this afternoon. It begins at least 1 week of full discussion
on the Senate floor and in our country on this critical issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I love history, and we have been here
before. We were in exactly this place in 1886. Let me read you a quote
from Senator Thomas W. Palmer of Michigan on this floor in 1886. I am
going to try to channel my 19th century Senator voice:
Among the servants of our civilization none have approached
in efficiency the railway. It has annihilated distance; it
has not only made the wilderness blossom as the rose, but
also has enabled the rose to be readily exchanged for the
products of cities. . . . These are the modern highways for
commerce, and should differ only in extent and facilities
from their predecessors back to the days of the Roman roads.
The point is, in the 1800s, the railroads were in a position, because
of their unique nature as the highways of the time, to strangle
competition and hold small businesses hostage. The situation today with
the internet is almost identical, and the Senate is now going to
grapple with a rapidly growing but mature industry that is central to
economic opportunity in our country. Unfortunately, in both the cases
of the railroads and today, the internet, often, there are players who
have the means and incentives to engage in discriminatory pricing or
prioritization due to the frequent existence of last-mile monopolies.
It is the exact same situation.
My favorite quote from Mark Twain is that ``history doesn't always
repeat itself, but it usually rhymes.'' In this case, it is repeating
itself.
Back in 1886, here is what the Select Committee on Interstate
Commerce said about the causes of complaint against the railroad
system.
No. 1, ``that . . . rates are unreasonably high at noncompeting
points.''
That means small towns--rural America--at noncompeting points, which
is the same as what is happening with the internet. We see today,
particularly in rural areas, that there is only one provider of the
truly high-speed broadband that is needed to run an online business and
its expenses.
Here is point No. 2 from 1886: ``The effect of the prevailing policy
of railroad management''--you can put in internet management--``is, by
an elaborate system of secret special rates, rebates, drawbacks, and
concessions, to foster monopoly, to enrich favored shippers, and to
prevent free competition in many lines of trade in which the item of
transportation is an important factor.''
This is exactly what we are worried about with the internet. It could
come roaring back if we don't reimpose net neutrality rules. It is not
hard to imagine that if paid prioritization is allowed, which would
have a customer on the pipes of the internet be able to get a faster
speed, it will cement the dominance of Facebook and Amazon, which are
great companies, but it will stifle the development of smaller
competitors who can't afford the access fees.
One of the great things about the internet is its low barriers to
entry. If, indeed, the major internet providers are able to impose
barriers to entry, it will, by definition, stifle small businesses
across the country. That has been the glory of the internet; the
enabling of the development of small businesses throughout the length
and breadth of this country.
Here is another one from 1886: ``Railroad corporations have
improperly engaged in lines of business entirely distinct from that of
transportation, and that undue advantages have been afforded to
business enterprises in which railroad officials were interested.''
In other words, the railroads were getting into other lines of
business which they could then favor on the railroads. That is exactly
what we are worried about now. Large telecommunications companies are
becoming vertically integrated with content companies. There is a clear
potential for conflicts of interest. Net neutrality rules are so
important for preventing any attempts of existing incumbent carriers to
favor the delivery of their own content and degrade the delivery of
competitors' content. This is exactly the kind of thing we are worried
about.
Right now, anyone with a broadband connection has equal access.
General Motors or Amazon or Exxon or Facebook has the same access to
the internet as somebody who is starting a new company in his garage,
and that is why the internet has been such a dynamic job creator across
the country. Yet, in December of 2017, the Federal Communications
Commission repealed the idea of net neutrality and basically said to
the large providers: It is open season. You can do it. Do whatever you
want. They have unenforceable rules, and small businesses and startups
will undoubtedly, ultimately, be the losers. This is just the reality.
Quite often, we have issues around here that are in shades of gray,
that we have to think about, and that can be argued on both sides.
Reasonable people can differ. In this case, the people who repealed net
neutrality are all wrong. There is no good argument for repealing rules
that simply keep the pipes open for everyone just as the Interstate
Commerce Commission in the 1880s was designed to keep the railroads
open for everyone.
This is a little complicated because it is the repealing of a repeal.
What we are talking about is a CRA that would repeal the repeal by the
FCC of net neutrality rules. It is the ultimate small business bill. It
will allow small businesses to compete without limitations, and small
online companies and low-income consumers will not be left in the slow
lane. Innovation will continue to blossom, and opportunity will have
equal access to this incredibly important economic engine.
It is important to understand that what this bill does, in my view--
or what net neutrality does--is not government regulation, which is
what you hear: ``This is government regulation.'' Somebody is going to
have the control of the pipes. The question is, Should it be the people
who own the pipes so they can do whatever they want and discriminate
against small businesses or other carriers and favor their own content
or should the government simply be the referee that says, ``No. This is
going to be equal''? I think net neutrality is deregulatory in the
sense
[[Page S2583]]
that all it does is protect the neutrality and the openness of the
internet to competitors across the country.
I had a roundtable in Maine, on Friday, to which I invited small
businesses and ISPs, internet service providers. The opinion--the
response--was unanimous in that this is absolutely crucial to the
survival and the vitality of these businesses. We have a small company
in Maine called Certify. It has 150 employees. It is a web-based
solution for people who keep track of their receipts for business
travel. It is a nationwide business. It has 10,000 clients across the
country, but it is all about having equal access to the internet. It
has 2 million users around the globe, and it is based in Portland, ME.
That is the power of the internet. We don't want that business to be
choked off by a large competitor who can pay preferential rates and
make my companies in Maine pay higher rates and therefore unable to
compete.
A little company called Big Room Studios and Yarn Corporation are two
software development virtual reality companies based in Maine. They are
dependent on continued access to an open internet. Their founder got in
touch with me. He firmly believes that without net neutrality rules,
there is a real risk that startup companies like his will face barriers
to entry that will keep them from reaching their full potential.
Another great example is Dream Local Digital, a company in Rockland,
ME, where the employees and customers are all over the place. It is
based in a wonderful town in Maine, on the coast, Rockland. They have
customers in 65 cities. It is a digital marketing company serving
customers throughout the country, primarily small businesses, all
connected through the internet. Led by a visionary named Shannon
Kinney, their core existence and business model rely on the open
internet enabling a significant number of employees to work from home
in 9 different communities in Maine and 10 other States. They have to
have open access to the internet.
This isn't a debate about ISPs and consumers. The smaller ISPs that
were at my roundtable and that I have heard from around the country
feel that an open internet is as important to them as it is to their
customers. They support net neutrality.
OTELCO, a rural broadband company, provides voice over internet
protocol, or VoIP, services, and they are worried that larger
competitors can demand paid prioritization fees in order to maintain
service quality, and that would be the end of their business.
This is an incredible moment in the Senate, and I don't think this is
a political issue. I think this is a small business issue. This is a
public issue. The crucial point is, who is going to control the future
of the internet? Is it going to be the owners of the large pipes, or is
it going to be the public? Can the internet maintain the quality of
service, the openness of service, the fairness of service that has been
a part of it, that has allowed it to grow so fast and become so
important in our economy?
Again, the idea of net neutrality is really simple. It is that
everybody has a fair chance at a fair speed at a fair price and that
the owners of the pipes can't discriminate between certain businesses
and those that can pay more and those that are bigger or those that are
affiliated with the owners of the pipes. It is all about the small
businesses of this country.
This is a real opportunity for us to do something important for the
small businesses of America, and I believe this resolution is one that
will restore us to a place where small businesses will be able to
compete and blossom and prosper in the future of this country.
I urge support of the CRA that I understand will come to a vote in
about a week. I believe this is absolutely essential to the development
of the internet-based economy, in rural areas particularly. To go back
to 1886, this body stepped up at that time, controlled the dangerous
monopolies of the railroads, established the principle of
nondiscrimination and common carry, and that is all we are talking
about today.
Mark Twain was right: History doesn't always repeat itself, but it
usually rhymes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this point to
speak for up to 5 minutes and to let my colleague from the Pacific
Northwest, Senator Cantwell, follow me immediately thereafter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Colleagues, this is the only resolution that provides a golden ticket
to maintaining a free and open internet.
By way of a free and open internet--and I know a lot of folks are
following this debate. I see folks in the Gallery. What a free and open
internet is all about is, after you pay your internet access fee, you
get to go where you want, when you want, and how you want. Everybody
gets treated the same. A local florist selling roses out of their shop
in Condon, OR, a kid in Roseburg who wants to learn about artificial
intelligence, a mom in Pendleton who wants to find out about
childcare--all of them get treated the same, and they get treated just
like the big guys, the people with the deep pockets.
Now the head of the Federal Communications Commission, a gentleman
named Mr. Pai, wants something very different. In effect, he wants to
turn that on its head and start cutting deals for the people with the
deep pockets. He would kind of like to have something called paid
prioritization, which basically means that if you are one of the
fortunate few, you can get faster speeds, more content, and you can get
access to the kind of technological treasure trove that I have seen my
colleague from the Pacific Northwest, Senator Cantwell, talk about. He
has all kinds of schemes to essentially suggest that he really is
helping the consumer when he is really working for the folks at the
top.
One of my favorites, colleagues--and my friend from Massachusetts and
I have discussed this--is that the head of the FCC from time to time
discusses the idea that we would have voluntary net neutrality. It is
hard to keep a straight face with this one, the idea that the big cable
companies, the big communications monopolies, are going to do this
voluntarily. I think that is about as likely as getting my 10-year-old
son, William Peter Wyden, to limit the number of desserts he eats. It
just isn't going to happen. It is not going to happen. I see some
parents on the floor who can identify with that. So what we have to do
is pass the Markey resolution and ensure that there is a real position
at the Federal Communications Commission that has some teeth.
The fact is, since he came to town, since he came to this position,
Mr. Pai has basically tried to water down this whole effort on net
neutrality again and again--we don't need title II protection; we don't
need any of the basics that have been part of this effort that we have
made for well over a decade to ensure that net neutrality has real
teeth.
My friend and colleague mentioned that he introduced the first one in
the House. I introduced the first one in the Senate. The point is, we
have been working on this for well over a decade in both Chambers.
One of the reasons we sought to take this action now is that not only
is Mr. Pai moving ahead to offer this ominous, dangerous definition of
``net neutrality,'' but we believe there is going to be a grassroots
juggernaut all across the country saying that now is the time to be in
touch with your Members of Congress to let them know how strongly you
feel about this.
I just attended nine townhall meetings in Oregon. Most of them were
in rural areas. Net neutrality for rural communities, folks, is a
prerequisite to making sure you are not a sacrifice zone. Without good
communications, how do you maintain, for example, rural healthcare?
I am very pleased to be out here with my friends--Senator Cantwell,
who knows so much about this issue; a former Governor, Senator Hassan,
who is very knowledgeable on these issues. Those of us from small
States, like Senator Hassan and me, know that this is really a
lifeline. This is how you get access to the big financial markets. This
is how you get access to the communication centers. This is how a kid
in a small town in New Hampshire or a small town in Oregon gets a fair
shake and has fair opportunity to get ahead,
[[Page S2584]]
just like a kid who lives in Beverly Hills.
We are going to be back on this floor frequently between now and next
week when we will seek to advance the Markey resolution. I will close
the way I began, colleagues. There is no path to a free and open
internet without the Markey resolution. This is the golden ticket, this
is the only ticket, and I hope folks all across the country will see
how important this is and weigh in with their Senators in the days
ahead.
Mr. President, thanks to my colleague for her courtesy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Markey,
Wyden, and Hassan, on the floor to add my name to a resolution to
overturn the FCC's decision, which is ill-advised and very wrong as it
relates to growing an innovation economy.
The internet is one of our most important national economic drivers.
In 2017, our internet economy produced more than $1 trillion in output
and created nearly 200,000 new jobs. In my State, Washington, it has
provided a platform for new innovation across many platforms and
applications. As a result, 13 percent of our economy is based on
innovation and technology. This economic activity supports 250,000
jobs. To say that the FCC's stymieing of the internet is acceptable is
fighting words for the State of Washington.
From increasing access to healthcare, such as telemedicine, to making
sure we find more affordable healthcare, to reforestation after natural
disasters--the internet is providing great tools and solutions for all
of these things.
Last week, several companies from my State joined me in expressing
opposition to the FCC and calling on Congress to pass this
congressional resolution sponsored by my colleague Senator Markey and
all of the Democrats. These companies know this resolution is
important.
Redfin, an internet company based in Seattle, is trying to address
new ways of doing real estate business. It is a full-service real
estate online tool that has helped save $400 million in how we process
home sales.
Another company, Deja vu Security, spoke about how, if you really
want to be great on attacking cyber intrusion, you need to know when it
happens, not after the fact or after a 20-minute delay because you are
not paying the highest rates.
Seattle-based DroneSeed uses drone technology to help reforest lands
after natural disasters.
All of those companies joined me in saying that they wanted to see
the FCC's actions overturned and that they wanted this resolution to
pass. Why? Because they know this is a big part of our economy.
Tech innovators got to where they are by having an open internet and
a level playing field. This really is about cable versus the internet.
It is about big cable companies that want to charge more to consumers
and businesses versus startups and individuals who want access to these
new applications.
Just three big cable companies control access to the internet for 70
percent of Americans, and over the past decade, the prices that
Americans pay these kinds of companies have risen almost twice as fast
as inflation. What the FCC is doing is giving cable companies the
ability to raise your rates even more. That is what this debate is all
about.
I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will at least
take a chance and look at this and understand that by giving all of
that power to three big cable companies, they are going to charge more
for internet access; that charging more or slowing down service for
people who won't pay will have an undue impact on consumers and the
economy. That is why we are out here fighting, because so much of the
internet economy is based on an open internet, so much of a rural
economy that is helping us grow jobs in rural parts of the United
States or even just our ag economy that depends so much on current
internet information as decisions are made. Are our farmers going to be
charged more because they aren't willing to pay the cable rate that you
wanted?
I join my colleagues in saying let's pass this congressional
resolution that basically says there has to be a free and open
internet. Let's get back to the innovation and the creation of more
jobs, not artificially slowing down the internet and giving a big win
to cable companies.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
support of reinstating net neutrality.
Access to a free and open internet is critical to promoting
innovation, supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses, and growing
our economy. Americans are accustomed to and want an internet that is
consumer-friendly and that ensures equal access to content, no matter
their internet service provider. Net neutrality helps ensure that the
internet remains free and open by requiring internet service providers
to treat all content the same way, providing equal access to
applications and content online.
My constituents in New Hampshire are keenly aware of how important
net neutrality is to their lives. Thousands of Granite Staters have
called my office throughout the last year to voice support and urge
Congress to protect it.
Unfortunately, last December the Republican-controlled Federal
Communications Commission, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, repealed net
neutrality protections--a harmful decision that has a variety of
consequences. By repealing these protections, the FCC has taken away
from consumers and small business owners the ability to control their
own internet experience and turned that control over to their internet
service providers. This directly impacts our small businesses and could
threaten the ability of entrepreneurs to get their businesses off the
ground.
Without net neutrality, internet service providers will be allowed to
force businesses and consumers to pay to play online. While larger more
established companies would be able to compete, new small businesses
and entrepreneurs might not be able to afford such fees, harming their
ability to boost their business and reach more potential customers.
This could particularly impact those in rural communities. Last year,
several members of the rural and agricultural business community in New
England wrote to the FCC to say: ``Repealing net neutrality will have a
crippling effect on rural economies, further restricting access to the
internet for rural businesses at a point in time where we need to
expand and speed up this access instead.''
This would also impact consumers by giving internet service providers
the power to discriminate against certain web pages, apps, and
streaming and video services, by slowing them down, blocking them, or
favoring certain services while charging consumers more for other
services.
Often consumers would have little option for recourse since we are at
a time when many Americans only have, at most, one or two options for
broadband providers, leaving them stuck with a provider that is using
unfair practices.
This could also affect the ability of countless people to organize
and civically engage online. An open internet serves as a platform to
elevate and empower voices that have been underrepresented in
traditional media. We have seen grassroots movements, like the national
Women's March, organized largely through online activism on the free
and open internet. Efforts like these are critical to our democracy,
which is why we need to protect the open internet as a mechanism for
civic engagement.
Given how critical net neutrality is to the lives of countless
Granite Staters and Americans and to the strength of our economy, we
cannot stop fighting to reinstate a free and open internet.
I am proud to join a bipartisan group of colleagues to show our
support for net neutrality and to introduce a Congressional Review Act
resolution to overturn the FCC's partisan decision. As we head toward
considering this measure, we are just one vote away from passing it. So
I urge my Republican colleagues to put consumers first, to help small
businesses and entrepreneurs innovate and thrive, and to benefit our
economy. With just one
[[Page S2585]]
more vote, we can move forward with restoring net neutrality and
protecting an open internet.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for
her incredible leadership on this issue. I know she had a huge forum
with small businesses up in New Hampshire that reflected the need to
ensure that we had an open and free internet.
As we talk about net neutrality, I think many people wonder: What
does that mean? What does ``net neutrality'' mean exactly? Well, the
way to think about it is, instead of saying the words ``net
neutrality,'' you say the word ``nondiscrimination,'' because that is
what we are talking about. We are talking about whether you are an
individual or you are a small firm and you are using the internet in
order to have your voice heard, in order to start up a business and
that you are not discriminated against just because you are a small
voice; that you are not discriminated against because you are not some
huge corporation; that, in this internet era, you are important and you
can't be discriminated against. That is what this debate is all about.
Now, how does that reflect the state of commerce online in America
today? Well, for example, last year in the United States--this is an
incredible number--half of all venture capital in America went to
internet and software startups or internet and software companies in
their beginning stages. Think about that. That is half of all venture
capital. Who gets that money? Well, they are newer people, newer ideas,
and newer job creators--the people who have transformed our country
over the last 20 years online. Those are the people who get access to
venture capital in a regime where net neutrality is the law of our
country.
Now, at the same time, the big broadband companies have been able to
invest tens of billions of dollars in the upgrade of their
infrastructure. So it is not as though we are talking about the big
companies getting it all or the little companies getting it all. They
are both doing great under the existing formula, but the tens of
thousands of smaller internet-based companies across this country are
the ones who are actually creating the jobs. They are the ones that are
hiring the new people. They are the ones who need the new real estate--
the 1,000 square feet, the 5,000 square feet, up to 25,000 square feet,
and up to 1 million square feet, ultimately.
That is where we are, for example, with Wayfair, up in Massachusetts,
which is a company from which you purchase furniture online. It started
very small, and now it needs hundreds of thousands of square feet of
space.
The same thing is true for TripAdvisor, up in Massachusetts. It
started very small, and now it needs hundreds of thousands of square
feet of space in order to hire all of their employees. That is what
happens when you have an open internet. That is what happens when
smaller companies and new companies online can raise the capital they
need in order to finance their idea, in order to hire people who will
advance this company's agenda across all 320 million people in the
United States and, ultimately, for many of them, across the planet. You
have to start somewhere, and the only way in which it really works is
if net neutrality--if nondiscrimination--is the principle.
So that is what we are going to be debating over the next week here
on the Senate floor. It is this fundamental issue of access to capital
for the smallest companies and not to allow five companies--the biggest
companies--to determine who gets access. The principle of net
neutrality--the principle of openness--has worked. We now have a whole
vocabulary in our country consisting of the names of companies that no
one knew 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago. Those are the
companies that are rising up and saying they want net neutrality to be
protected here today.
In addition to that, we have dozens of other groups, the free press,
and others who are all saying that we need it to advance democracy as
well. We want the smallest individual to know that their voice can
never be stifled, that their voice can never be cut off. That is what
this debate is all about. That is why the Members are out here on the
floor. We are trying to reflect the 86 percent of Americans who support
net neutrality. I know that is why Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota is
here.
At this point, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today to join
Senator Markey to talk about the importance of strong internet
neutrality protections. He also came to Minnesota this past month and
was able to meet with a number of our small businesses, including a
woman who started a business making children's clothes and who saw
growth because of the internet. He met people who never would have had
that opportunity if we didn't have net neutrality.
Today we took a major step forward on this issue by forcing the
Senate to hold a vote on legislation to save net neutrality. I believe,
in the end, we will have the votes to get this done.
It will send an important message that the internet should remain
free, open, and equal to all who use it. It will then be considered, we
would hope, by the House because our goal is to actually get this done.
Why? Because net neutrality is the bedrock of a fair, fast, open, and
global internet. It holds internet service providers accountable for
providing the internet access consumers expect while protecting
innovation and competition.
It is also one reason the internet has become one of the great
American success stories, transforming not only how we communicate with
family and friends but also the way companies do business, how
consumers buy goods, and how we educate our kids.
At its best, it is an equalizing force because it means kids on
Tribal lands in Minnesota or kids that are in extreme rural areas are
going to be able to access the same classes as people in urban areas.
It means that a small business in Ada, MN, is going to be able to
sell their goods on the internet just like one of our big companies in
the Twin Cities, like Target or Best Buy. It is an equalizing force.
Earlier this year, the FCC approved Chairman Pai's plan,
unfortunately, to eliminate net neutrality protections. Despite the
millions of comments from the American people asking the FCC to protect
a fair and open internet--not to mention a half million comments from
Russian emails--the FCC voted in December to move forward with Chairman
Pai's plan to end net neutrality.
Under Chairman Pai's plan, the FCC gives major internet service
providers the ability to significantly change consumers' experiences
online. Big internet service providers may soon be able to block, slow,
and prioritize web traffic for their own financial gain. They could
begin sorting online traffic into fast or slow lanes and charging
consumers extra for high-speed broadband. Internet service providers
could even block content they don't want their subscribers to access
because they would prefer other content that might benefit them
financially.
The only protections maintained under the proposed order are
requirements for service providers to disclose their internet traffic
policies. But for consumers with only one choice for internet service,
like so many in my rural areas in Minnesota, there is no real
opportunity to comparison shop or find a new provider if they are
unhappy. So that provision is of little help. This means that even
though consumers may be aware that their internet service provider is
blocking or slowing their connection, they have no choice because they
have no alternative.
According to the FCC, more than 24 million Americans still lack high-
speed broadband. We should be focusing our efforts on helping those
households get connected, not eliminating net neutrality and worsening
the digital divide.
But this isn't just about individual internet users. It will limit
competition, and that is why it is also about small businesses. A truly
open internet encourages economic growth and provides opportunities for
businesses to reach new markets, drive innovation, and create jobs.
Small businesses remain engines of job creation, and net neutrality
levels the playing field. In one company I toured in Ada--this is a
[[Page S2586]]
great example--a woman started this business at her kitchen table. She
had such bad internet access in Ada that she has to have her 2-person
sales force located in Fargo--and that is a long way away. But if you
look at her whole business model, it is about marketing on the
internet. She has taken that business from the kitchen table to one
that has 20 employees and is shipping her products--that would be chain
jewelry--all over the country.
Well, without unrestricted access to the internet, entrepreneurs may
be forced to pay for equal footing to compete online. So if it isn't
bad enough that she doesn't have access right where her business is and
has to have her employees located off campus--way over, actually in
another State--now, if you get rid of net neutrality, she will not be
able to have an even playing field at all. She will be in the slow
lane.
This proposal will hurt the very people creating jobs and keeping our
economy competitive. That is why I have joined my colleagues who push
for a vote on Senator Markey's resolution to repeal Chairman Pai's plan
and protect net neutrality rules.
Over the next few days, we need to keep the pressure on because the
vote will have a major impact on the future of the internet. This
repeal is part of a larger trend of helping large companies push out
their competition. The fight to protect net neutrality is far from
over, and we need to make our voices heard.
Mr. President, I rise to join many of my colleagues who have come to
the floor to speak about our country's third branch of government--our
courts--as well as to express my opposition to the nomination of
Michael Brennan to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am very disappointed that
the Senate has decided to abandon the blue-slip tradition for circuit
court judges. The blue-slip policy held true throughout the entirety of
the previous administration, including when Republicans ran the Senate
and when Democrats ran the Senate. This is for good reason. The blue
slip is a key check and balance. In my view, it has promoted
cooperation, as well as resulted in better decision making for judges
across party lines.
Senators have a solemn obligation to advise and consent on the
President's nominees to the Federal courts, and I take that obligation
very seriously. I know my colleague Senator Baldwin also takes that
responsibility very seriously. That is why she had a bipartisan process
in place through which she worked with Senator Johnson in an effort to
produce consensus nominees.
This nominee did not gain sufficient support from the Wisconsin
judicial nominations commission. So it is unfortunate that we are
considering his nomination on the Senate floor.