regular basis and approved of the activities in which she was engaged when it came to the enhanced interrogation program which she herself did not directly participate in but which occurred during her time in the counterterrorism center. that condecided after the fact to change -- that congress decided after the fact to change some of those policies does not make the prior implementation of the policies improper at all. indeed, it was her professional obligation to carry them out. and were it not for -- was not for her or her fellow officers to second-guess the legality of those policies. in fact, at the time miss haspel, at the time in issue miles an hour haspel was a gs15 which is a civil service rank chg would be the equivalent of either a major or lieutenant colonel. its a -- it's as if saying the decisions made by the commander

in chief, the lieutenant colonel participated in executing, that somehow they were responsible for the policy made by the commander in chief of the military. that just doesn't make any sense at all. as long as our military officials rely on the best legal guidance give to inthem -- given to them at at time, they should not be second-guessed later on. some have now gone so far as to complain that her full personnel file has not been released. but, as i said, ms. haspel has the unique qualification of having served under cover. she's participated in some of the most sensitive intelligence activities that our country is engaged in and the idea that now we would jeopardize the sources, the method, the reliances that we had at that time just so

colleagues could display that in full public view strikes me as terribly misguided. it is true that in the intelligence committee that we did have a classified hearing at which all of those matters were aired but in an appropriate setting, protecting that important, sensitive information which is absolutely critical to keep the country safe. but the idea that we ought to release her full personnel file, including sensitive operations, just to jeopardize the safety of other officers and expose sensitive methods of intelligence collection is to risk national security itself. some of our colleagues are suggesting that that happened, but they simply know better. and they should know better. mr. president, you saw a stark difference at the hearing today between those who wished to ensure we have the most qualified person leading the

c.i.a. and those who are determined to obstruct president trump's nominees at all cost. in fact, i mentioned during my time questioning ms. haspel, i mentioned a national security expert that said if ms. haspel had been nominated by president obama, it would be an easy call. but because she was nominated by president trump, and ironically happens to be the first woman nominated to this important position as director of the c.i.a., for some reason now we're going to hold her and president trump to another standard, a double standard. well, if people were really listening, they would have heard ms. haspel confirm what many of us have been saying about her all along, that she is the right person for this job. we learned that former defense secretary and c.i.a. director leon panetta and former director

of national intelligence james clapper, both former obama officials, unequivocally support ms. haspel. we've heard from michael hayden, john brennan, both former c.i.a. directors, both who criticized president trump for other matters but praise this pick to head the agency. and we read about this nominee, too, as "the wall street journal" board recently penned its support writing that the people misrepresenting the c.i.a. nominee were in the cheap seats during the worst days of the war on terror. ms. haspel did not have that luxury. and i couldn't agree more with that characterization. yet some of our colleagues systemly refuse to listen and, in fact, we've been seeing the same pattern play out throughout the trump presidency. people playing politics and obstructing the nominees of the president simply because they disagree with the president, not because of the qualifications of

the nominees. and, sadly, we've seen character assassination against nominees who've subsequently withdrawn because they've been unwilling to go through the process and see the destruction of a reputation that they've worked a lifetime for. and it is our nation's loss the good people -- that good people withdraw from the process rather than go through that sort of character assassination. we do have a duty, after all, the senate does, to ensure that our country has well-qualified people at the head of our national security agencies like the central intelligence agency. while ms. haspel's credentials are certainly more than sufficient to support her nomination against some of the baseless claims we've heard, there's -- there is just as important a case to be made for her that's based on upholding the c.i.a. as an institution. two lawyers who formerly served at the white house counsel's office in the justice

department, david rifkin and lee casey, wrote in "the wall street journal," if agents are blamed following the directives of their superiors, the c.i.a.'s ability to protect the u.s. will be fundamentally compromised. i agree. we want our intelligence officers to be as aggressive as they can within the confines of the law, collecting an analyzing intelligence they can then provide to policymakers so we can keep our country safe. so we ought to at least for a while put a hold on the politics of obstructing nominees, particularly to national security posts, so we can put americans' safety first. we have to ask ourselves in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous time, what does the c.i.a. mean to the national security of the united states? for an agency at the very forefront of protecting our country's citizens, what type of person do we want at the helm? i believe we want a person like

ms. haspel. it is ms. haspel, short and sweet, who i think fits the mold of that sort of person we want. so i would urge our colleagues to rethink what we're doing here, to shift gears and support this nominee who's so well-qualified and so devoted to protecting our country. can you imagine the individual sacrifices intelligence officers who serve under cover have to make, the sort of strain on relationships when they're deployed abroad, like our military is, and the hardships they have to sustain. but they do it because they love our country and they're dedicated to keeping the american people safe. those sort of people, that kind of character, that kind of integrity ought to be rewarded and not criticized and punished. so as i say, i'd urge our colleagues to rethink what we're doing here and to shift gears and support this qualified nominee. she's exactly what the american people deserve, so let's get her confirmed.

and finally, mr. president, on another matter, earlier today the house judiciary committee took action on the first step act, which is companion legislation to the bill that senator whitehouse, the junior senator from rhode island, and i introduced here in the senate. the committee's passage of this bipartisan legislation advances prison reforms tried out and proven in states like texas, rhode island, and georgia and elsewhere, which if successfully implemented rehabilitate low-risk offenders and save taxpayer dollars while reducing the crime rate and helping people reestablish themselves as productive members of society. this is not true across the board. i'm not naive enough to think that people that go prison will be able to salvage and save every single one who comes out. but i do believe we can do much better if we give people the opportunity, those who have the will and the determination to

take advantage of the opportunity to turn their lives around, to deal with their addiction, to deal with their lack of skills and education, and if when given the opportunity to do so decide they want to take advantage of that to turn their lives around. to help low-risk offenders prepare to lead productive lives in our communities. that's a goal that we should all share regardless of where we are on the political spectrum. so i applaud our colleagues in the house judiciary committee for this important action. prison reform itself has never been controversial. everyone in this chamber can agree we need to better prepare folks who are about to be released from prison so that they don't end up right back where they started and where we can help them lead a life that's law-abiding and productive and, thus, help improve the safety and security of our communities. so i look forward to continuing to work with our colleagues in the house and the senate as we move this important legislation

forward. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, to you and all of my colleagues here on the floor this afternoon, we are about to have a huge debate in this country, and we are taking to the floor as a chorus of americans across the nation who 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 that it the internet is the most powerful platform for commerce and communications in the history of the planet. they know that the internet is for everyone and was invented with the guiding principle of nondiscrimination. the internet is designed to democratize access to in fact everything to opportunity. they know that 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 that strong, clear, and enforceable net neutrality rules are the only way to protect the internet as we know it. and that is why an overwhelming

86% of americans oppose the federal communications commission's decision last december to repeal net neutrality rules. and outside of washington, this isn't a partisan issue at all. in fact, 82% 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 upon. 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 fastlanes, slowing down websites, blocking

websites, making it harder and maybe even impossible for inventors, entrepreneurs and small businesses, the lifeblood of the american economy, to connect to the internet. now, why did they do this? well, the reason is simple. the trump administration time and time again sides with the rich and the powerful first and consumers last. from the g.o.p. tax scam to the repeal of the affordable care act to rolling back fuel economy standards 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 traffic and even blocked websites because the big internet service providers want to pump up their profits. so how does all this work? well, first my c.r.a. 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 directtv now service or verizon

could prohibit you from using skype, so you have to use their phone service. that's bad for competition and innovation, and it is very bad for consumers. second, might c.r.a., congressional review act, resolution will restore the rules against throttling. without this protection, broadband companies could slow down any website they want and 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 will restore the rule prohibiting paid prioritization. without this rule, internet providers could charge large established websites for access to an internet fastlane, meaning those websites would load quicker. when websites that can't afford the internet easy pass will at the same time load at a bumper-to-bumper pace. small businesses that rely on fast internet service would be dwarfed by corporate competitors that can afford the faster service. the -- this would spell doom for mom and pop businesses that are the backbone of our communities. finally my act would restore the forward-looking general conduct rule. when the f.c.c. eliminated this guideline it removed protections against future times such as

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, thaous -- these are not alarmists hypothetical harm. they are very real. and in a world without net neutrality, they very well may become the new normal. this is an historic moment. we are approaching the most important vote for the internet in the history of the senate. and should the senate resolution pass, it will be the first time in more than a decade a minority party sponsored congressional review act resolution overturns a majority party administration's rule. we can and should put president trump on notice. countless americans have called and e-mailed congress to express

support for net neutrality and for my c.r.a. resolution. all you have to do is look at the internet today, to this red alert for net neutrality which is on dozens and dozens and dozens of companies' websites all across our country. these are smaller companies, not the big companies. they're all saying the same thing, that they need net neutrality, that they need to be protected, that they don't want to have the large companies be able to act in a discriminatory way. and those companies reddit, trip advisor, tumbl' r, 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. governors in five states have issued executive orders, attorneys general in 23 states have filed a lawsuit. 27 state legislatures are working on legislation to protect net neutrality. we all know that in 2018 access to a free and open internet isn't just a privilege. it's a right. i knew that back in 2006 when i introduced the 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's a debate that has been taking place in our country now for an internet generation, going back 12, 13 years. it is what binds millennials,

teachers, librarians, entrepreneurs, medical professionals, social advocates, generations x, y, and z, all of these groups who are up in arms because the future of the internet is at stake. to my colleagues across the aisle i encourage you to seize this opportunity and to stand with the american people who overwhelmingly support net neutrality. again, 86% of all americans, 282 of all republicans across the country support net neutrality. by passing this resolution, we can send a clear message to american families that we support them. not the special interest agenda, but the issue of whether or not we're going to empower ordinary families, ordinary small businesses to be given the protections which they need. the american people are watching closely. they're paying attention to who

is fighting for them and who is sitting on the sidelines, who is listening, 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, and 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, extended educational opportunities, expanded opportunities in society. that is what internet is doing for 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. so again, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this congressional review act resolution to restore net neutrality, and i will now file this discharge petition with the clerk of the senate so that we can begin the process of having this historic debate on the floor of the united states senate. and i thank all of my colleagues who are going to participate in this discussion this afternoon. it begins at least one week, a full discussion here on the senate floor and in our country on this critical issue. and at this point, mr. president, i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, i love history, and we've been here before.

we've been in exactly this place in 1886. let me read you a quote from senator thomas w. palmer of michigan on this floor in 1886. among the servants -- i'm going to try to channel my 19th century senator voice here. among the servants of our civilization, none have approached an efficacy, the railway. it has annihilated distance. it has not only made the wilderness blossom as the rose but 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 if a sill 'tis from their -- facilities from their pred sources back to the days of the roman roads. the point is in the 1800's, the railroads were in a position because of their unique nature as the highways of the times 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's central to economic opportunity in our country. unfortunately, in both the cases of the railroads and today the internet, often there are players that have the means and incentive to engage in discriminate -- discriminatory pricing. my favorite quote from mark twain is history doesn't always praoept itself but it -- repeat itself but it usually rhymes. in this case it's repeating itself. here's what the committee on commerce in 1886 said about the causes of complaint against the railroad system. number one, that rates are unreasonably high at noncompeting points. that means small towns, rural america at noncompeting points,

the same is happening with the internet. we see today, particularly in rural areas where there's only one provider. truly high-speed broadband is needed to run an online business and it's expensive. point two, from 1886 the effect of the prevailing policy from 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 as many lines of trade in which the item of transportation is an important factor. this is exactly what we're worried about with the internet. it could come roaring back if we don't reimpose net neutrality rules. it's not hard to imagine that if paid prioritization 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 amazot

it will stifle the development of smaller competitors who can't afford the access fees. one of the great things about the internet is 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's been the glory of the internet, is the enabling of the development of small businesses throughout the length and breadth of this country. here's 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 businesses which they could then favor on the railroads. that's exactly what we're worried about now. large telecommunication

companies are becoming vertically integrated with content companies. there's 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 that we're worried about. right now anyone with a broadband connection has equal access. general motors or amazon or exxon on facebook has the same access to the internet as somebody starting a new company in their garage. and that's been why the internet has been such a dynamic job creator across the country. but in december of 2017, the federal communications commission repealed the idea of net neutrality and basically said to the large providers, it's open season.

you can do it. do whatever you want. they have unenforceable rules, and small business and start-ups will undoubtedly ultimately be the losers. this is just the reality. quite often, mr. president, we have issues around here that are shades of gray that we have to think about. you can argue both sides. reasonable people can differ. in this case the people that repeal 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 1880's was designed to keep the railroads open for everyone. this -- it's a little complicated because it's a repeal of a repeal, what we're talking about here. it's a c.r.a. that would repeal the repeal of the f.c.c. of the net neutrality rules. it's the ultimate small business

bill. it would allow small businesses to compete without limitations. small online companies, low-income consumers won't be left in the slow lane. innovation will continue to blossom. opportunity will have an equal access to this incredibly important economic engine. it's important to understand that what this bill does, in my view, or what net neutrality does is not government regulation. that's what you hear. this is government regulation. this is -- somebody is going to have the control of the pipes, and the question is should it be the people that own the pipes so that they can do whatever they want, discriminate against small business or other carriers, favor their own content? or should the government simply be the referee that says, no, this is going to be equal? i think this is actually -- net neutrality is deregulatory in the sense that all it does is protect the neutrality and the

openness of the internet to competitors across the country. i had a roundtable in may, and on friday where i invited small businesses, i.s.p., internet service providers, and we -- the opinion, the response was unanimous that this is absolutely crucial to the survival and the vitality of these businesses. we have a small company in maine called certify. 150 employees. it's the largest -- it's a web-based solution for people keeping track of their receipts for business travel. it's a nationwide business. it has 10,000 clients across the country. but it's all about having equal access to the internet. it has two million users around the globe, based in portland, maine. that's because of 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 company in maine pay higher rates and, therefore, unable to

compete. a little company called big room studios, yarn corporation, two software development virtual reality companies based in maine, they're dependent on continued access to an open internet. their founder got in touch with me. he firmly believes that without net neutrality rules, there's a real risk that start-up companies like his will face barriers to entry that will keep them from reaching their full potential. another company in rockland, maine, where the employees and customers are all over the place, is based on a wonderful town on the coast. they have customers in 65 cities, a digital marketing company throughout the company, primarily small businesses all connected through the internet. led by a visionary named shannon kenny, their core existence relies on the open internet.

significant number of employees working from home in nine different communities in maine, they've got to have open access to the internet. this isn't a debate about i.s.p.'s and consumers. the smaller i.s.p.'s who were at my roundtable and who i've heard -- i've heard from from around the country, they feel that an open internet is as important to them as their customers. they support net neutrality. a rural broadband company atellco in maine, they provide voice-over-internet services and they're worried that larger competitors could demand paid prioritization fees in order to maintain service quality and that would be the end of their business. mr. chairman -- mr. president, 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. that is public issue. and the crucial point is, who is going to control the future of the internet? is it going to be large -- large -- the owners of the large pipes or is it going to be the public, and can the internet maintain the quality of service, the openness of service, the fairness of service that has been a part of it, that that is allowed it to grow so fast, become so important in our economy? and, 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 who can pay more and those who are bigger or those who are affiliated with the owners of the pipes. but it's 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 that 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. so, mr. president, i urge the support of the c.r.a. that i understand will come to a vote in about a year. and this is absolutely essential, i believe, 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 in common carry and that's all we're talking about today. mark twain was right. history doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes.

thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i think we're getting a little bit out of order, and i want to thank my colleague from washington state. i would ask unanimous consent at this point to speak for up to five minute minutes and that my colleague from the pacific north confident west, senator cantwell, would follow me immediately afterward. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you very much. mr. president and colleagues, this is the only resolution that provides a golden ticket to maintaining a free and open internet. and by way of a free and open internet -- i know a lot of folks are following this debate and seeing folks in the gallery through this. 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. and everybody gets treated the

same. a local florist selling roses out of their shop in camden, oregon, a kid in roseburg who wants to learn about artificial intelligence, a mom in pendleton who wants to find out about child care -- 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, in effect, start cutting deals for the people with the deep pockets. he kind of would like to have something called paid prioritization, which basically means that if you're one of the fortunate few, you can get faster speeds, more content, you can get access to the kind of technological treasure-trove that i've seen my colleague from

the pacific northwest, senator cantwell, talk about. and he's got all kinds of schemes to essentially suggest that he's really helping the consumer when he's really working for the folks at the top. one of my favorites, mr. president and colleagues and my friend from massachusetts and i have discussed this, is the head of the f.c.c. from time to time discusses the idea that we would have voluntary net neutrality. and it's hard to keep a straight face with this one, mr. president, the idea that the big cable companies, the big communications monopolies are going to do this voluntarily. i think it is about as likely as getting my 10-year-old son william peter wyden to voluntarily limit the number of deserts he -- desserts he eats. it just isn't going to happen. not going to happen. and i see some parents on the

floor who can identify with this. so what we've got to do is pass the markey resolution and ensure there's a real position that the federal communications commission -- at the federal communications commission that has some teeth. and the fact of the matter is, since he came to town -- since he came to this position, mr. pai has basically tried to water this whole effort at net neutrality down again and again. we don't need title 2 protections, 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, but the point is, we have been working for this for well over a decade in both

chambers. and one of the reasons that we sought to take this action now is not only is mr. pai moving ahead to offer this ominous, dangerous definition of net neutrality, is we believe that 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 and let them know how strongly you feel about this. i just came off nine town hall meetings in oregon. most of them were in rural areas. net neutrality for rural communities, folks, is a prerequisite to making sure you're not a sacrificed zone. without good communications, how do you maintain, for example, rural health care?

so i'm 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 i 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 and a small town in oregon, they get a fair shake and have fair opportunity to get ahead. just like a kid who lives in beverly hills. so, mr. president, we're going to be back on this floor frequently between now and next week when we will seek to advance the markey resolution. and i close like 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, with thanks to my colleagues to her courtesy, i yield the floor. ms. cantwell: thank you. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i join my colleague, senator markey and senator wyden, senator hassan, who are on the floor, to add my name to a resolution to overturn the f.c.c.'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 23017 an internet economy produced more than $1 trillion in output and created nearly 200,000 new jobs. in my state, washington, they are always providing new innovations across many platforms and applications. as a result, 13% of our economy is based on innovation

technology and economic activity that supports 250,000 jobs. so to say that the f.c.c.'s stymieing of the internet is acceptable is fighting words for the state of washington. we know that increasing access to health care, whether it's telemedicine, making sure we find more affordable health care, reforestation after natural disasters -- all of these are things that the internet is providing great tools and solutions for. last week several companies from my state joined me in expressing opposition to the f.c.c. and calling on congress to pass this congressional resolution sponsored by my colleague, senator markey, and all of the democrats. this resolution is so important because these companies know, like redfinn, an internet company based in seattle, is trying to address new ways of doing the real estate business. it is a full-service real estate online tool that has helped save

$400 million in how we process homes. another company, deja vu security, also spoke about how you want to be great on attac attacking cyber intrusions, then you need to know how they happen. and seattle-based drone seed uses that technology to reforest national land after disasters. all of these companies joined me in wanting to see the f.c.c.'s actions overturned and they wanted this resolution to pass. why? because they know that this is a big part of our economy. that tech innovators got to where they were by having an open internet and a level playing field. this really is about cable versus the internet. it is about big cable companies who want to charge more to consumers and businesses versus start-ups and individuals who want access to these new applications. just three big cable companies

control access to the internet for 70% of americans. and over the past decade, the prices that americans paid these type of companies have risen almost twice as fast as inflation. so what the f.c.c. is doing is giving cable companies the ability to raise your rates even more. that is what the debate is all about. i hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will at least take a chance to 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 people who won't pay it will have an undue impact on consumers and the economy that support it. that's why we're out here fighting, because so much of the internet economy 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 just pins so much on current internet information as they make decisions -- are you going to charge our farmers more because they aren't willing to pay the cable rate that you wanted? so 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 innovation and the creating of more jobs, not artificially slowing down the internet and giving a big win to cable companies. i thank the president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to join my colleagues in support of reinstating net neutrality. mr. president, 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 connections, a harmful decision that has a variety of consequences. by repealing these protections the f.c.c. has taken away from consumers and small business owners the ability to control their own internet experience

and turn 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. with larger, more established companies -- 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 agriculture business community in new england wrote to the f.c.c. to say -- and this is a quote -- 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 when 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 more -- charging consumers more for other services. and 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's using unfair practices. and, mr. president, 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've seen grassroots movements like the national women's march organized largely there 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. mr. president, 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'm proud to join a bipartisan group of colleagues to show our support for net neutrality and introduce a congressional review act resolution to overturn the

f.c.c.'s partisan decision. and 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 more vote, we can move forward with restoring net neutrality and protecting an open internet. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president, very much. i thank the senator from new hampshire for her incredible leadership on this issue. i know she had a huge forum of small businesses up in new hampshire that kind of reflected

the need to ensure that we had an open and free internet. and 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 word net neutrality, you say the words nondiscrimination, because that's what we're talking about. we're talking about whether you're an individual or you're a small firm and you're using the internet in order to have your voice heard, in order to start up your business, that you're not discriminated against just because you're a small voice. you're not discriminated against because you're not some huge corporation. that in this internet era you're important, you can't be discriminated against. that's 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 start-ups or internet and software companies in their beginning stages. think about that. half of all venture capital. and who gets that money? well, there are newer people, newer ideas, 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's not as though we're talking about, well, the big companies get it all or the little companies get it all. they're 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 hire the new people. they are the ones that need the new real estate, the 1,000 square feet, the 5,000 square feet, up to 25,000 square feet, up to a million square feet ultimately. that's where we are, for example, with wayfare, up in massachusetts, which is a company where you purchase furniture online. it started very small.

now it needs hundreds of thousands of square feet of space. same thing is true for trip advisor up in massachusetts. it starts very small. now it needs hundreds of thousands of square feet of space in order to hire all of their employees. that's what happens when you have an open internet. that's what happens when smaller companies, 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. but 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's what we're going to be debating over the next week here on the senate floor. it's this fundamental issue of

access to capital for the smallest companies and not allow five companies, the biggest companies determine who gets access. the principle of net neutrality, the principle of openness has worked. we have a whole vocabulary consisting of the names of companies who no one knew their names 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago. those are the companies who are rising up and saying they will net neutrality to be protected here today. and in addition to that, we have dozens of other groups, free press, others who are all saying 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's what this debate is all about. that's why the members are out here on the floor.

we're trying to reflect the 86% of americans who support net neutrality. i know that's why senator klobuchar from minnesota is here. and i at this point, mr. president, will yield back. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i'm 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 that started a business making children's clothes, and the growth she saw because of the internet. people who have never 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's also one reason the internet has become one of the great american success stories, transforming not only how we kphaoebgt -- communicate with family and friends, but also how consumers buy goods, how we educate our kids. it's an equalizing force because it means kids on tribal lands in minnesota orchids 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, minnesota, 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 f.c.c. approved chairman pai's plan, unfortunately, to eliminate net neutrality protections despite the millions of comments from the american people asking the f.c.c. to protect a fair and open internet, not to mention a half million comments from russian e-mails, the f.c.c. voted in december to move forward with chairman pai's plan to end net neutrality. under chairman pai's plan, the f.c.c. gives major internet service providers the ability to significantly change consumers' experience 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. and 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 even though consumers may be aware that their internet service providers is blocking or slowing their connection, they have no choice because they have no alternative. according to the f.c.c., more

than 25 -- 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 insraeufgs and creates -- -- innovation and creates jobs. one company i toured in ada, this is a great example, a woman started this business at her kitchen table. she has such bad internet access in ada that she has to have her two-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 that 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. if it isn't bad enough not to have access where her business is and have employees off campus way over in another state, now if you get rid of net neutrality she won't be able to have a level playing field at all. she will be in the slow lane. this will hurt the very people creating jobs and keeping our economy competitive. that's why i joined my colleagues to push a vote on senator markey's bill to oppose commissioner pai's plan. we have to keep the pressure on because the vote will have a

major impact on the future of the internet. this is part of a larger trend to help large companies to push out their competition, consolidation, the fight to protect net neutrality is far from over and we need to make our voices heard. i also, mr. president, going to very briefly, a minute or two each, comment on two issues before our country and before the senate. the first is that i rise today 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 through throughout the entirety of the previous administration, including when republicans were

in the senate and when democrats were in the senate. this is for good reason. the blue slip is a key check and balance and it is in view that 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 that my colleague, senator baldwin, also takes that responsibility very seriously, and 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. secondly, i also want to take a moment to discuss the iran

agreement and the president's decision. yesterday the president announced that the united states will unilaterally withdraw from the jcpoa, commonly referred to as the iran agreement. in 2015, i supported the iran agreement, although i may have negotiated differently, but we had the agreement before us, and i supported it because i believed it was the best available option for putting the brakes on a nuclear weapon for iran. i still believe that today. we cannot allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and as we had this critical into negotiations of north korea's nuclear weapons, we cannot be backing away from international agreements and nuclear inspections. preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most important objectives of our national security policy. i strongly advocated for and supported the economic sanctions

that brought iran to the negotiating table and the subsequent sanctions passed last year to address iran's destabilizing activities and promotion of terrorism. unilateral withdrawal from the agreement has resulted in a splintered international partnership with our european allies that has been critical to preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. we should instead be negotiating a more comprehensive agreement that includes iran's nuclear ambitions today and in the future. ballistic missile tests and destabilizing activities that pose a direct threat to israel and other allies. we can do this, conduct those negotiations with our allies as part of a team without withdrawing from the existing agreement. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'm pleased to join my creation on -- colleagues on the floor to trongly support the -- strongly support the resolution to maintain a free and open internet. i want to thank senator markey for introducing this resolution. restoring net neutrality is especially important to small businesses and startup companies in new hampshireed and across the -- new hampshire and across the united states. small businesses represent 99% of our employers and the internet continues to provide opportunity for those small businesses because it levels the playing field, it makes it easier to find new customers and grow online. but that level playing field is now in jeopardy because of the

federal communications commission decision to end net neutrality. last thursday i convened a field hearing on small business and entrepreneurship at the university of new hampshire. i wanted to hear concerns of our small business owners about what the net neutrality would mean to them. in particular, their concern that net neutrality will impede their ability to expand and create jobs. in conversations with small business owners and leaders across hi state -- my state, they tell me that this roll back is -- rollback is a direct threat to their businesses. they say it would be like watching their large competitors take the highway while they are forced to take the slow roads. whitehouse net neutrality, broadband provides -- without net neutrality, broadband providers could charge more, a cost that small businesses can't afford, that would put them at a

greater disadvantage vis-a-vis large corporations that have the resources to pay for those fast lanes. in the digital age, speed is critical. witnesses at the hearing said that small delays of a second or less, think about that, can lead to the loss of significant sales. customers today expect a fast, easy online experience, and it's clear that small businesses operating at slim margins would lose out to big firms that can afford the fast lane. josh sear, who testified at hur hearing -- who testified at our hearing. he is with a company that is based in new hampshire. at the field hearing he had a stark warning. he said, and i quote, the repeal of net neutrality enables a small handful of very powerful

internet providers tremendous control of what is delivered to consumers' homes and the speed with which it is delivered. without net neutrality, he went on to say, the power and control these internet providers have will allow them to create artificial market barriers. and the repeal of net neutrality would pose even greater challenges for small businesses in rural areas. like minnesota, as senator klobuchar said she has a lot of rural areas in minnesota, and so does new hampshire. a 2015 survey by the university of new hampshire found that nearly 40% of new hampshire residents who were polled said they were using their current provider because it is the only option available to them. many rural small businesses will have nowhere else to turn if their broadband provider decides to charge more or slow down their connection. our witnesses noted that net

neutrality could heighten the rural-urban divide making it more challenging for small businesses in rural communities to reach customers, attract workers and stay connected. one of the other people testifying at the hearing was nancy pearson, the director of the new hampshire women in enterprise. she testified that net neutrality is a matter of equality. she said, and i quote, new hampshire small businesses and microbusinesses rely on the equalizing force of the internet, and just to put that in perspective, she went on to say, women start businesses at five times the rate of other entrepreneurs, and for minority women and veterans that number is even higher. when we start putting barriers in the way of these entrepreneurs, it can have a significant and disastrous effect. end quote. now, the f.c.c.'s rollback of

net neutrality rules is also creating tremendous uncertaintiy, especially for -- uncertainty for startup businesses. it could have major ramifications on sales, marketing, and internet costs that small businesses just can't predict. participants at the field hearing warned that the f.c.c.'s decision would affect not only businesses but also institutions of higher education. it will also negatively impact efforts to provide telemedicine, consultations to patients who don't have access to services locally. again, we have a big rural population in new hampshire. well, a small population, but a lot of rural areas. and i'm concerned, for instance, about the impact on the veterans administration's out patient clinic. it provides psychiatric care to

veterans in remote locations. what will happen if they can no longer provide that service because they don't have the ability to pay for those lanes anymore? small businesses, siewrms, all -- consumers, all americans who care about a level playing field on the internet have every reason to be concerned by the f.c.c.'s repeal of net neutrality protections, but their ill-considered rollback doesn't have to be the last word. we can bring to the floor a bipartisan resolution to prevent the f.c.c.'s rollback from being forward. a coalition of more than 6,000 small businesses -- 6,000 across the country, sent a letter to congress asking us to protect them by overturning the f.c.c.'s decision to repeal net neutrality. further, and at my field hearing last week, granite state small

businesses offered compelling testimony about the importance of net neutrality to their competitiveness and their ability to expand and hire new workers. we must not ignore this groundswell of opposition to the f.c.c.'s rollback of rurals that ensure equal access to the internet. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support the congressional review act resolution. let's restore net neutrality protections that ensure a free and open internet with access on equal terms for all businesses and consumers. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. kor cortez -- ms.

cortez-masto: net neutrality has leveled the playing field for every american consumer, allowing everyone to access and enjoy an open internet. thanks to the internet provided by schools and public libraries, students have been able to utilize information available online to enhance their education or help them do their homework. i have heard from librarians and library administrators from all across nevada expressing their concerns about the direct negative impact net neutrality's repeal would have on nevadans. they told me repealing net neutrality would hurt essential services. according to pugh resource centers, say that libraries are more likely to be young, black, female, and lower income. now, in nevada i know that

students who don't have access to internet at home now go to the library to do their homework. nevadans applying for jobs currently use the internet in public libraries to connect with employers to send resumes and job applications. many nevadans use the internet to learn new skills through training resources available online. in november of last year i received a letter from the las vegas clark county district opposing net neutrality. the library district is the largest in the state and serves over 1.6 million people. the letter reads, and i quote, many of our customers, even in the urban areas, are not able to afford access to the internet at their home and rely on public libraries to research information about starting small businesses and whatever else they need to do on the internet. unquote.

limiting the ability of public libraries to provide fast, reliable internet service means limiting opportunities for nevadans to thrive. through simple online marketing or using online sales platforms, small businesses have the opportunity to improve their visibility and expand their customer base. it has become possible for start-up companies to get a fair chance at competing in highly saturated markets because of internet accessibility. it is true in nevada and all across the country that the internet has opened doors for jobs, businesses, education, innovation, and technology. and net neutrality protections have allowed the country to continue opening those doors. as access to the internet has exploded, more and more americans have been empowered to start their own business venture. more specifically, there's been a sharp growth in women business owners due in large part to a

freely accessible, fair, and open internet. as you've heard between 2000 and 2016, women-owned firms grew at a rate of five times the national average mirroring the emergence of the internet as a platform for economic growth. for example, etsy, an online shopping platform caters to small businesses of which 87% are owned by women. and just last week, i held a roundtable in reno with women entrepreneurs. one of their biggest concerns was the repeal of net neutrality and how that would adversely affect their businesses' profitability and success. with net neutrality's repeal, business owners like katie who cofunded a tech company in reno -- cofounded a tech company in reno will have to go up against large corporations that can't afford to buy faster internet speeds. this would stifle competition and cripple the growth of small businesses like hers. katie told me, quote, it really would be a stifling situation

for us not only financially but from an innovation standpoint. your dollars have to go to furthering your business, not paying to deliver it. mr. president, nevada's economic growth depends on the small business owners like katie who invest in our communities. and that's why we can't afford to repeal net neutrality. chairman pai's misguided decision to repeal net neutrality protections threatens to change the internet as we know it. it threatens our small businesses, access to online education, job growth, and innovation by giving those who can afford to pay more the ability to set their own rules. nevada's small businesses, local hospitals, public libraries, and disadvantaged communities among many others will bear the burden and become subject to the whims of broadband providers who now have the ability to elevate their own content and pick and choose which websites nevadans can have access to. the f.c.c. has a long-standing

responsibility of protecting american consumers and the public interest. so while chairman pai refuses properly to do his job, i urge my colleagues to vote in support of the c.r.a. and stand with all americans regardless of their income. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. when you look at what this body has done over the past year and a half, and what the united states senate has stood for, unfortunately, one thing is really clear, corporations get handout after handout where ordinary americans get the shaft. corporations are doing really, really, really well, especially those companies that shut down production in places like mansfield, toledo, lima and zanesfield and moved production overseas. those companies are rewarded because down the hall, often in

the dead of night, lobbyists gather in the majority leader's office and write health care legislation and consumer legislation that always helps the richest and the biggest and most profitable in our country and leaves out the middle class, leaves out working families, leaves out low-income americans. we saw it with the tax bill. 80% of the benefits over the course of this bill, four out of every $5 go to the top 1% of earners in this country. reports show corporations funnel their tax savings to executives and investors over workers by a three to one margin so that the people that wrote this tax bill promised us that the money saved by large corporations -- their tax rates were cut by 25% to 32%. other goodies were bestowed to other companies.

they promised that it would go to higher wages to workers and investment in communities for more jobs. you know what happened not too many weeks ago? in laurencetown, ohio, general motors announced that they would lay off workers. they saved millions of dollars. the money department go to ohio or workers or investment in communities, it went to the executives in higher -- and higher compensation. right before the tax breaks the five top earners at general motors brought home more money. that is before the taxes are raised on you in the middle class and working families and the tax breaks go to the richest people. we saw it with the tax bill and the rollback of protections for consumers. it is easier for pay-day lenders

to deny customers their day in court. we see it in health care legislation when members of this body, well-paid united states senators, well-paid get good benefits, good health care coverage were willing to vote time and again to take that health care coverage away from consumers. in ohio alone 500,000 people right -- over the course of the last few years have gotten opioid treatment for their addiction because they have insurance under the affordable care act. these members of the senate have tried to take it away from them. now the question is, are we going to see it again? see the bias in this body for the wealthiest, largest corporations on a tax bill, on a bank bill, on a health care bill? are we going to see it again with net neutrality? are my colleagues going to allow corporate special interests to shut down the free and open internet or for once is this body going ton stand for the people -- going to stand for the people we serve?

net neutrality keep the internet free from corporate interference. protecting those rules is vital to protecting free speech and consumer choice and access to public information. last december, the f.c.c., the federal communications commission, on a party-line vote where there's a majority of republicans on this commission, the f.c.c. voted to repeal those rules by one vote allowing internet providers to slow down internet speeds and offer better connectivity to the highest bidder. i don't know of anyone in any part of ohio who said to me, yeah, i don't want net neutrality, i want corporations to be able to charge different rates and stick it to people with low income and offer something better to those people who are wealthier. i never heard anybody say this. i know of companies that benefit from changing the net neutrality rules. i don't know of any individuals who want to do that. it's not individuals or the

middle class that control this body or the federal communications commission, it's the people who represent the largest corporate interests. we know without net neutrality rules broadband providers could charge customers more for faster speeds, squeezing out startups, squeezing out nonprofits, sceezing out rural -- sceezing out rural consumers. you could be forced to pay for internet packages the way you do for -- anyone who has been on the phone negotiating packages with their cable companies knows how frustrating it can be and knows where this could be headed. high-speed internet is expensive enough as it is. customers already have too few choices. in some places in ohio, for instance, people in my state have no choice at all. i'll never forget not too many years ago i was talking to a high school sophomore who told me, she lives in very hilly

appalachia southeast ohio. she told me she can't really study at home because she doesn't have access to the internet, to any kind of high-speed internet because she lives in a valley. she goes to her grandmother's up on a hill to study so she can do her schoolwork the way she needs to. if we don't stand up to the federal communications commission, if we don't stand up to the big telecommunication companies, if we don't do the right thing here, that will continue to be a problem and be increasingly a problem for far too many ohioans. a free and open internet that levels the playing field for entrepreneurs and startups to compete with big corporations is what we need to do. many of my colleagues love to talk about their support for business, but the question is which businesses? small businesses drive job creation, small businesses create two-thirds of all new net jobs. these companies will be hurt the most if the biggest

corporations -- again in this senate if the biggest corporations are allowed to gouge them for internet fees. it shouldn't be partisan. nobody separates themselves as republicans and democrats out in my state on these kinds of issues, but here it partisan. it's here -- here it's partisan because, first of all, the administration looks like a retreat for wall street executives. it was this conscious this very -- this very decided bias toward the wealthiest people in this country. we know that -- that in -- in -- in issue after issue this body always sides with the largest corporation rs, but small businesses -- corporations, but small businesses will be the ones hurt the most, as i said. it shouldn't be partisan, internet is vital to modern life and businesses. today, mr. president, i talked to a woman from cleveland, ohio, a small business owner named helen quinn. she and her husband jesse mason started a food truck.

they -- through google they were able to grow a following for their business. in 2014, they reached a point they were successful enough that they would able to buy an old iconic ice cream shop not far from where i live in cleveland. they operate full time. they partnered with other small businesses in the neighborhood. in this -- this friday helen and jesse will join me in cleveland to grow with google summit to talk with other entrepreneurs and other job seekers to use the internet to grow jobs. i bet any amount there will not be one person there, not one business owner, job seeker who will say i want to relax the net neutrality, i want to side with the big corporations instead of free and equal access to the internet. why would we want to make that

harder and more expensive? rolling back the net neutrality rules will hurt the very people that all of us claim to want to help, small businesses, startups, students, americans looking for jobs, those are the people who will get hurt. large corporations -- many large corporations will do well under this bill. that is typically the motive and mission for people that come out of the majority leader's office, these lobbists that are always working on the issues to help corporate america. but rolling back the rules will hurt the people we claim to help, again, small businesses, startups, entrepreneurs, students and those americans looking for jobs. that's why we're filing a petition to have a bill to overturn this disasterus decision and reinstate net neutrality rules. it is pretty much every debate here is, mr. president, of who's side are you on? are my colleagues going to stand, again, with the biggest

telecommunication corporations as they stood with the big corporations that outsource jorks, as they stand -- jobs, as they stand with wall street, as they stand with big tobacco, as they stand with the koch brothers, and the big health care companies that deny insurance and health care to working families? are they going to p stand with them -- to stand with them, big telecom companies to pad their own bottom lines? are we going to stand with the people we serve -- with hardworking americans in small businesses and students and entrepreneurs who need access to the internet? this internet -- the internet doesn't belong to a wealthy few. this senate too often belongs to a wealthy few. it shouldn't. a lot oppose those efforts, we know the internet should not belong to a wealthy few. it belongs to the people we were sent here to represent. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this petition and protecting ra free and open -- protecting a free and

open internet. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: