[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.