found useful in explaining net neutrality. in 2005, three guys set up shop over a pizzeria in a strip mall in san mateo, california, where they launched the now ubiquitous youtube. video-sharing websites were in their infancy, but these guys already faced competition from something that preceded it called ongoing video. but google video wasn't very good. because of net neutrality, youtube was able to compete with google, with google video on a level playing field. the giant internet service providers treated youtube's videos the same as they did google's. and google couldn't pay them to gain an unfair advantage like a fast lane into consumers' homes. they were treated the same,

neutrally. the content was neutral, net neutrality. people really like youtube. they preferred youtube to glool video. and youtube thrived. enemy fact, in 2006, google bought it for a stock valued at $1.65 billion. it's a nice chunk for three guys over a pizza restaurant in san mateo. it's not just tech companies that rely on an open internet. a coalition that includes visa, bank of america, u.p.s. and ford explained that, quote, every retailer with an online catalog, every manufacturer with online

product specififications, every -- specifics, every bank offering online account management, every company with a website, every business in america interacting with its customers online is dependent upon an open internet. unquote. i repeated this quote on the floor and at rallies time continue time again over the years because i think it perfectly exemplifies the importance of this issue. preserving net neutrality is only controversial for the few deep-pocketed entities that stand to financially gain without it. if f.c.c. chairman pai ultimately has his way, we'll be entering a digital world where the powerful outrank the majority, a world where a

handful of multibillion-dollar companies have the power to control how users get their information and a world where the deepest pockets can pay for a fast lane while their competitors stall in the slow lane. for nearly nine years i have been calling net neutrality the free speech issue of our time because it embraces our most basic constitutional freedoms. ironically the kind of civic participation that has inspired some of us in recent months and has affected real change like in the fight for net neutrality and the successful efforts to save the affordable care act, they have depended in no small part on a free and open internet. now, in 2015, the f.c.c.'s vote to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers under title 2 of the

communications act didn't just mean good things for net neutrality, it also had important implications for consumer privacy. it gave the agency the authority and responsibility to implement rules to protect americans' privacy by giving consumers greater control of their personal data that is collected and used by their broadband providers. that was a big win. republicans didn't see it that way. one of the first things they did this congress was to repeal those rules, which was a huge blow to americans right to privacy. for my part i have long believed that americans have a fundamental right to privacy. i believe that they deserve both transparency and accountability from the companies that have the capacity to trade on the details of their lives. and should they choose to leave

personal information in the hands of those companies, they certainly deserve to know that their information is being safeguarded to the greatest degree possible. this transparency and accountability should come from all the companies that have access to americans sensitive information. this includes internet service providers like come cast and at&t but also edge providers like google, facebook, and amazon. in 2011, i served as chair for the inaugural hearing of the judiciary subcommittee on privacy technology and the law, a subcommittee that i founded after it became abundantly clear that our nation's privacy laws had failed to keep face with rapidly evolving technologies. when people talked about protecting their privacy when i was growing up, they were talking about protecting it from

the government, talking about searches and seizures and whether the government was keeping tab on the books they read or the rallies they attended. we have seen a fundamental shift on who has our information and what they are doing with it. that's not to say that we still shouldn't be worried about protecting ourselves from government abuses, but now we also have relationships with large corporations that are obtaining, storing, sharing, and in many cases, selling enormous amounts of our personal information. when the constitution was written, the founders had no way of anticipating the new technologies that would evolve in the coming centuries. they had no way of anticipating the telephone, for example. and so the supreme court ruled over 40 years ago this a wiretap

constitutes a search under the fourth amendment. the founders had no idea that one day the police would able to remotely track your movements through a g.p.s. device, and so the supreme court ruled in 2012 that this was also a search that also required a court approval. all of this is a good thing. our laws need to reflect the evolution of technology and the changing expectations of american society, that is why the constitution is often called a living document. but we have a long way to go to get to the point where our modern laws are in line with modern technology. my goal for the subcommittee was to help members understand both the benefits and privacy implications of emerging technologies, to educate the

public and raise awareness about how their data are being collected, used, and shared, and if necessary, to legislate to fill the -- to fill gaps in the law. and when politics prevented legislation, i repeatedly pressed companies, many of them more than once, to be more transparent about how they were treating their customers' private information, including users web data, web producing -- browsing information and finger and face prints. as consumer awareness has evolved, these companies have taken important steps to improve transparency of their use of americans personal information. unfortunately, accumulating massive troves of information is not just a side project that they can choose to halt at any given time. for many of them it's their whole business model. we are not their customers, we

are their product. recently we've seen just how scary this business model can be. in october of this year the judiciary committee examined russia's manipulation of of the 20 -- of the 2016 campaign. both the public and members of congress were shocked to learn the outsized role that the major tech companies play in so many aspects of our lives based primarily on the mass collection of personal information and complex algorithms shrouded in secrecy. not only do these companies guide what we see, read, and buy on a regular basis, but they are dominant specifically in the market of information now requires that we consider their

role in the integrity of our democracy. unfortunately, this false hearing demonstrates they may not be up to the challenge they have created for themselves. the size of these companies is not in isolation the problem, but i am extremely concerned about these platforms use of americans personal information to further solidify their market power and consequently extract unfair conditions from the content creators and innovators that rely on their platforms to reach consumers as has become alarmingly clear in recent months, companies like google, facebook, and amazon have unprecedented power to guide americans access to information and to potentially shape the future of journalism. it should go without saying that

such power comes with great responsibility. everyone is currently and rightfully focused on russian manipulation of social media, but as lawmakers it is incumbent upon us to ask the broader questions. how did big tech come to control so many aspects of our lives? how is it using our personal information to strengthen its reach and its bottom line? are these companies engaging in anticompetitive behavior that restricts the free flow of information and commerce? are they failing to take simple precautions to respect our privacy and to protect our democracy? and, finally, what roles should these companies play in our lives and how do we ensure transparency and accountability from them going forward?

modern technology is fundamentally -- has fundamentally altered the way we live our lives and it has given us extraordinary benefits. but as these companies continue to grow and evolve, challenges like those we recently confronted in the judiciary committee will only grow and evolve with them. so we must now muster the will to meaningfully address the tough questions related to competition, privacy, and ultimately the integrity of our democracy. now, i will not be here to ask those questions. i will do what i can to find the answers from the outside, but it's my colleagues in the senate who must prioritize them going forward. there's simply too much at stake, and i know that they will do so with the help of a tireless advocacy community from

the brilliant minds that have long contemplated these incredibly complex issues and ensured that lawmakers pay attention. more importantly they will do so with the support and encouragement of the american people. i have witnessed significant highs and significant lows in the fight to protect consumers' rights, but the most important lesson that i have learned along the way is that ordinary americans can wield extraordinary power when they raise their voices. for this reason, and despite significant setbacks in recent months, i know that it is the public's interest that can ultimately prevail. thank you, mr. president. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, i understand that my republican colleagues and president trump are busy celebrating the passage of the tax bill that was voted on at 1:30 in the morning last night. they're very excited and they're very happy about it, and i understand that. and i guess if one were a billionaire like president trump or a wealthy campaign contributor, you do have a whole lot to celebrate. and maybe if you're one of the 6,000 lobbyists here in washington, d.c. who helped write the bill, i guess they're celebrating altitude. but if you you are in the vast

majority of the american people who are in the middle class, you should not be celebrating altitude. in fact, you should be pretty nervous. the passage of this legislation marks a great victory for the koch brothers and other wealthy campaign contributors who will see at a time of massive income and wealth inequality huge tax breaks for themselves. in other words, the wealthiest people will become much wealthier. meanwhile the deficit, what is owed by our kids and our grandchildren, will increase by $1.5 trillion as a result of this bill. and the largest and most profitable corporations, companies like apple, microsoft, pfizer, general electric, who despite record-breaking profits, they're going to see very, very

large tax breaks to the tune of many billions of dollars. now at a time when the very wealthy are becoming much rich richer, tens of millions of american families are struggling to keep their heads above water economically. 40 million americans are living in poverty. the nonpartisan tax policy center tells us that in terms of this legislation, 83% of the tax benefits will go to the top 1% by the end of the decade. 83% of the tax benefits go to the top 1% who are already doing phenomenally well. 60% of the benefits will go to the top .1 %.

meanwhile at the end of ten years, some 92 million middle-class households will be paying more in taxes. and then on top of all of that, as the only nation, major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people, this bill will result in 13 million americans losing their health insurance. i understand the president was really excited about this. hey, what a great day. 13 million more americans are losing their health insurance when we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people. but with the ending of the individual mandate, what all of the experts tell us is that health care premiums will go up.

so if you're an average person out there, your health care premiums will very likely go up as a result of this legislation. meanwhile, starting next year -- i'm not talking about ten years from now. starting next year some eight million middle-class families will pay more in taxes. doesn't it say a lot about republican priorities when they make permanent the tax breaks for corporation corporations --e permanent -- and yet they make temporary the tax breaks for working families which will expire in eight years. furthermore, i would hope that every american is listening closely to what speaker of the house paul ryan is talking

about. and i have to give ryan credit for being pretty honest about the intentions of the republican party. just this morning he was on abc saying what he had said for quite awhile. and that is that the republican plan is a two-step approach. step number one, passing legislation that passed last night here and today in the house. step number two, is having run up a deficit of $1.5 trillion, they are now going to come back and offset that deficit by making massive cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid. according to ryan, they got a two-step program. step one, massive tax breaks to the rich and large

corporations, run up the deficit by $1.5 trillion. step number two, offset that deficit by cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid. how unspeakable and outrageous is this plan. how much does it go against what the american people want, giving huge tax breaks to billionaires, to the trump family, to the koch brothers, and then paying for those tax breaks by cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid. mr. president, there are millions of senior citizens and people with disabilities in vermont and all across this country who today are struggling to buy food, to heat their homes, to buy the prescription drugs they need because they're

trying to survive on $12,000, $13,000, $14,000 a year social security. there are people who have worked their entire lives and have exhausted themselves as they approach retirement. do not tell those people who live on $12,000, $13,000 a year social security that you're going to cut their benefits through a chained c.p.i. or some other mechanisms in order to give tax breaks to billionaires. how outrageous that would be. don't tell older workers, many of them with health problems, having worked 20, 30, 40 years, that you're going to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to microsoft, pfizer,

and general electric, but then you're going to ask them to work more years in order to be eligible for medicare. mr. president, i understand that every member of the congress would like to go home for the holiday season, and so would i. this is the time of year when vermont is really very, very beautiful. but the truth is, is that it would really be unconscionable for us to leave washington after giving tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations while we ignore the enormous problems facing the middle class and working families of our country. mr. president, when donald trump ended the deferred action for childhood arrivals, the daca program, nearly 800,000

lives were thrown into chaos and uncertainty. without the legal protections afforded by the daca program, hundreds of thousands of young people today are living in terrible fear and anxiety about losing the legal status that they currently have in the only country that they have ever known. these are young people who have grown-up in the united states, gone to school in the united states, are working in the united states, are in our military. this is their home. it would be unspeakable -- unspeakable -- to take away their legal status and subject them to dmorration. since the -- deportation.

since the president's announcement in september, more than 11,000 people have already lost their protections under daca and more to lose their protection by the march 5, 2018 deadline. mr. president, these are hundreds of thousands of wonderful young people. we cannot turn our backs on them. we must deal with daca before we leave for the holiday break. any end of the year spending agreement must address the fear and uncertainty caused by the administration's reckless actions and a clean dream act must be signed into law. now, this is not just what bernie sanders wants. this is what the american people

in overwhelming numbers want. a qunipiac poll came out just the other day in which 77% of the american people supported maintaining legal status for these young people and allowing them to move forward towards citizenship. 77%, than is consistent with other polls that have been taken. a vast majority of democrats, of republicans, of independents understand that it would be incredibly cruel and harmful to our country in so many ways to deny legal status to the dreamers. we cannot turn our backs on the dreamers. we must address their crisis right now. mr. president, it has been

almost threep months -- three months since funding for community health centers has lapsed. our nation's 1,400 community health centers serve more than 27 million people in roughly 10,000 communities throughout this country. in my own state of vermont, one out of four vermonters get their primary health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, and mental health counseling at a community health center. how does it happen that the republican leadership can spend months on a bill to give tax breaks to billionaires but not address the lack of funding, the reauthorization of the community health center program or the children's health insurance program which provides health care to nine million children? mr. president, right now in this

country there are one and a half million workers and retirees in multiemployer pension plans who could see the pensions that they worked for their entire lives cut by up to 60%. people were promised these pensions a few years ago and in a disastrous act congress took away that promise and working people could lose the pensions they were promised up to -- to up to 60% cuts in those pensz. congress needs to act before the end of the year to make sure that no one in america a multiemployer pension plan will see their pensions cut. those are real issues impacting real people, but there are more. there was an article recently in

"the washington post" and what it said is because of major cuts to the social security administration people with disabilities are not getting their claims processed in a timely manner. the result was that in one year, if you can believe it, 10,000 people with disabilities died before they got their claims processed. what the republicans have been very active on is making sure that the social security administration does not get the funding they need, which means that it is harder for people who have retired, people who have disabilities to get the information that they need or the claims that they have processed get them processed in

a timely manner. we must make sure that every senior and person with disabilities gets treated with dignity. we have to restore adequate funding to the social security administration. mr. president, one of the great outrages that currently is taking place in this country, and really is quite beyond belief, is that at a time when we live in a competitive global economy and when we need the best educated workforce in the world to be able to do the new jobs that are being created which require more education, we have over 40 million people in our country -- 40 million -- who have left college or graduate school in debt, and sometimes deeply in debt. i'm talking about people i have met who have gone to medical

school or dental school, $300,000, $400,000 in debt. this is a crisis that is impacting millions of people it's impacting our entire economy. it is an issue that must be addressed. maybe, just maybe, before we give tax breaks to billionaires, we might want to significantly lower the debt burden that so many people in this country have in their student debts. mr. president, again, this is the year 2017, soon to be 2018. this is the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and yet there are communities in vermont, communities in utah, communities all over this country that do not have adequate broadband service. now, how do you start a business

in a community if that community does not have rapid broadband or good cellphone service? and the answer is you don't, you can't, and that is one of the reasons why rural america is hurting so badly. we must invest in rural infrastructure, make sure that every community in this country has quality-affordable broadband. mr. president, there is an opioid epidemic sweeping this country, impacting vermont, my neighboring state new hampshire, west virginia, kentucky, all parts of this country are seeing people dying of overdoses from p opioid abuse -- from opioids and heroin. this is an epidemic that must be

addressed. we cannot leave without giving people the resources they need and to keep young people from becoming addicts. we need to have research and treatment for the epidemic. mr. president, as we speak, there are over 30,000 vacancies in the veterans administration, and that means that we have got to make sure that every veteran in this country who goes to the v.a. gets the quality and timely health care that he or she needs. we can't turn our backs on the veterans. we've got to invest in the v.a. mr. president, the bottom line is that as much as all of us would like to get out of washington and go home, we simply cannot turn our backs on

tens of millions of working people and people in the middle class. it is not good enough to pass tax breaks for billionaires and then leave town. so i would hope, mr. president, that the republican leadership will immediately bring to this floor the legislation that we need to address the many crises facing the middle class of this country. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. mcconnell: i would ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of the following nominations -- executive calendar 489, 498, 509, 531, 532. that senate then vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that no further motions be in order, that any statements relating to the nominations be principled in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor, -- all those in favor, say aye. opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to

the en bloc consideration of the following nominations -- executive calendar 571, 572, 573, 574, 575. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the nominations. the clerk: nominations. department of justice. duane a.kees of arkansas to be united states attorney for the western district of arkansas. steven r. mcaliceter of kansas to be united states district attorney for the district of kansas. ronald a. parsons jr. of south dakota to be united states attorney for the district of south dakota. ryan k. patrick of texas to be united states attorney for the southern district of texas. michael b. stewart of west virginia to be united states attorney for the southern

district of west virginia. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the senate vote on the nominations en bloc with no intervening action or debate. that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc. the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and that no further motions be in order and any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor say aye. those opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader on january 3, 2018, the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination. executive calendar 508. i ask consent there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form and following the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate,

that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that no further motions be in order, and that any statements we rate -- related to the nomination be printed in the record. notwithstanding rule 31, the nomination be held in status quo into the second session of the 115th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of executive calendar 590 through 5 -- 560 through 569 and all nominations placed on the secretary's desk and that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate o owe, any statemented related no the nominations be printed in the record, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc. calendar number 124, s. 117, calendar number 56, s. 501. i further ask unanimous consent that where the -- where applicable, the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bills as amended if amended be considered read a third time, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, december 20. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

finally, following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned til senate stands adjourned til the u.s. senate approved the republican tax bill. current funding for the government expires friday night. they must take action to prevent shutdown from taking place on saturday. see live coverage of the u.s. senate when members return on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company and is brought to today by your cable or satellite provider.

>> atop security and homeland security advisor said north korea is responsible for a may 2017 iran somewhere attack called want to cry. he spoke to reporters in the white house briefing room yesterday. [inaudible conversations] >> morning. i would like to talk to today about a cyber issue that happened in may of this year called want to c