choice and the free flow of knowledge. mr. president, these things are not a luxury. they are what makes american ingenuity possible. and i just have to say as a former preschool teacher, i support net neutrality because it helps the next generation of innovators, our students, especially those in rural and low-income areas. schools have worked very hard to improve access to high-speed connectivity for all students because they know from early education through higher education and through workforce training, students need high-speed internet in order to learn and get the skills that they need. their teachers need the internet to collaborate with colleagues, access educational material, help students learn valuable research and internet safety skills, and expand access to a high-quality education for students with disabilities and english learners. rolling back net neutrality threatens that educational

equity and worsens the digital divide. so let's protect the free and open internet, not just f today's consumers but for o students, the next generation of american innovators. the choice couldn't be easier. either we stand with everyday americans or with the massive corporations that have found a new way to make more money off of them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, as with our colleagues her i rise as well to speak introng support of the resolution to restore strong net neutrality protections for americans.

this is obviously what the american people want, and for the vote that was just taken on the motion to proceed, 52 for, 47 against, i think it is showing you how the american people's will is being expressed in a bipartisan way, because the american public understands how important these protections are to their lives and the future of the internet. they do not want to have their websites blocked or internet access slowed, and they certainly don't want internet providers making those decisions of blocking or slowing. more than 20 million residents of florida understand just how

vital it is to have a free and open internet, and i say that for my state, but that is obviously the same for every other state as well. millions of school children in my state and across the entire country. in my state from pensacola to orlando to thelorida keys, benefit from an education built on a free and open internet, and that's why educators and librarians throughout the country have rallied in favor of net neutrality, knowing that an internet that is no longer free and open is a lost educational opportunity for our children. florida's colleges, universities, and technical

schools rely on the free and open internet for their vital educational and research missions. unfettered access to the internet is essential to research, research into issues as critical to the state and nation as medical research, climate change, sea level rise, whatever the research is. florida's growing economy is equally reliant on a free and open internet. the growth of high-tech jobs all over the country but particularly in florida, including those across the middle swath of florida, including the booming space coast is largely built on advanced high-speed internet networks available in those

areas, amall businesses as well. all around, use the internet as the great equalizer, bringing a global marketplace to your very doorstep, but that global market for those companies exist only so long as everyone on the internet is treated the same. if you start picking and choosing, then you loose the value of that equalizing where a small company can have a great idea and have access to the information just like a big company can do. citizens throughout my home state rely on the internet for civic and social engagement. the internet is today's social forum. it's a tool that we use to stay

engaged in the lives of family, friends, and peers. the internet can also be an equalizing force, and as such has been a place where communities of color have been able to tell their own stories in a way that they have never been able to tell before, and it has given minority communities the power to organize, to share, and to support each other's causes every. -- causes. to limit access to that net would be to help silence these voices that are just beginning to be heard. i don't think we want to do that. congress must ensure the internet remains open to all, and thus the vote that we have

coming up in just about an hour and a half. unfortunately, the f.c.c. has empowered internet providers to dictate consumers' experience online. what the chairman of the federal communications commission did, chairman ajit pai, he went overboard in what he has tried. this senator has spoken overnd over for moderation in approaches to how the f.c.c. would be involved with regard to regulating the internet, because when websites can be blocked, when downloads can be slowed and consumers then have to pay more to access what they are actually looking for, that's not a a free

and open internet. it becomes a closed internet. i am very happy to be here on the senate floor with all of these other senators that have spoken to restore the f.c.c.'s net neutrality protections. the resolution before us immediately restores the f.c.c.'s strong consumer protections for the internet. it will make sure that the internet content cannot be blocked or it cannot be throttled. it will prevent internet providers from charging more for transmitting certain content, certain favored content. it will preserve the f.c.c.'s authority to examine other practices that can harm

consumers. and it will make sure that consumers are given understandable bas information about their internet service. and so it's necessary that this congress protect consumers' access to the internet. so the choice before us today is clear. a vote in favor of this resolution is a vote to restore the free and open internet. it's a vote to keep control of the internet in the hands of those who use it. congress must undo the f.c.c.'s decision to turn its back on american consumers by stripping away net neutrality. the american public ought to be what we consider first. so i'm happy to support this resolution.

i call on my colleagues to join us in protecting a free and open internet. and, mr. president, i would say in closing that this senator, as one of the leaders of the commerce, science, and transportation committee, has so often spoken in favor of the two sides getting together and negotiating legislation, because if we keep going through this roller coaster if the f.c.c. does one thing and the roller coaster goes another way and it does another thing, and each time it acts, it goes into court. ultimately, there ought to be a legislative solution. but today is to take a stand on the excessive action of the

f.c.c. so that it will set the table in order that we can go about and make sure protecting the free and open internet and give the ingenuity and creativity and yankee inventiveness of this country the opportunity to continue to blossom forth by using this new technological tool that has been virtually put into use just in the past decade. we don't want that internet throttled and limited. it needs to be free and open. mr. president, i yield the floor.

and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call: mr. schatz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. in december the f.c.c. made a colossal mistake by rolling back net neutrality protections. and today the senate has an opportunity to begin the process of righting that wrong with an up-or-down vote to overturn the

f.c.c.'s repeal and to restore the free and open internet. this is a big deal. we just had a vote with all democrats and independents and three republicans, and we have another vote at around 3:00. if we fail, the f.c.c. will end net neutrality protections in early june. and if we succeed, then this fight will go on to the next step in the house of representatives. mr. president, this vote is a no-brainer. net neutrality is one of the most popular issues that the senate will consider this year. there is no other issue that polls so decisively on one side. a survey by the university of maryland found that 83% of people are in favor the net neutrality, and that includes 75% of republicans, 89% of democrats, and 86% of independents. when you think about people's

experience with their i.s.p., it makes perfect sense. people are already frustrated with the limited competitive options for the providers that they have. and then once they sign up for service, they find that there are hidden fees. they have to pay for the installation. they have to wait for the installation. they have to rent the cable box. their bill suddenly goes up within a year of service, finding out that they were only engaged in a promotional offer. in other words, many people don't like their internet service providers. they like the internet, but they don't like the lack of choice and all the hassle and expense that comes with getting on the internet. and so if you ask people if we should get rid of the rules that actually give consumers control over their internet access, if we should give broadband companies even more power over our lives, they say no. providers promise to be good to

consumers. and in fact, many of them have said that they don't need the f.c.c. to maintain a free and open internet because they are already officially committed to the idea. but without net neutrality, there is nothing in the law that prevents companies from treating content or websites differently. in fact, many of these publicly traded companies, once the dust settles, once the politics wanes of this net neutrality issue, they will be talking to their chief financial officers, their boards of directors will be asking why are you not maximum phaoeudzing revenue -- maximizing revenue? why are you not charging consumers more when you can? and if the answer is in the process of trying to prevent a piece of legislation from passing, we made a promise, the board of directors will say, well, change your mind. and the only thing that can stop

a corporation who provides broadband services to consumers from doing all the wrong things is a law. it is not a promise. it is a law. and so the question for the senate is very simple. whose side are you on? are you for the consumers who are asking us to protect the internet? or are you with the telecommunications companies? and i want to be really clear here. there is no constituency on the other side of this other than the telecommunications companies. you don't go to a town hall meeting and see this thing evenly split. when we were debating the iran deal or the affordable care act or an infrastructure bill or the tax bill, even in a deep blue state like hawaii or a deep red state like some of my colleagues, there's always people on both sides of this issue. i have not met one human being in hawaii who's against net neutrality. and i challenge anybody out there to find someone who's against net neutrality.

the only constituency for this is the people who would benefit from what the f.c.c. already did. some are pointing to a bill in the house that would take care of a few of the problems that come with getting rid of net neutrality. but when you dig a little deeper, it's clear that this is not a compromise. it doesn't offer close to the protection that net neutrality gives consumers and small businesses. in fact, it gives these i.s.p.'s the ability to charge small businesses and consumers more money for different types of content, and that's the crux of the issue. again, go and ask a consumer, a small business owner, and they will tell you they're already frustrated with internet providers, and they expect congress to do the right thing and look out for their interests. the issue is incredibly important to young people. they've grown up on the internet. it's part of their lives, and they do not want congress to stand by and do nothing as this f.c.c. allows internet providers

to change the way we access the internet. it's clear to me that net neutrality is popular among everyone. older people, young people, small business owners, republicans, democrats and independents, red states and blue states. it's also clear that the benefit to them does not come close -- the benefits of the i.s.p.'s does not come close to outweighing what students, businesses, families and others will get from a free and open internet. with this vote, every member of the senate will be on the record for or against net neutrality. i hope every member will choose to vote the way that nearly all of america wants us to and restore net neutrality. i yield the floor. mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i was in a conversation with a group of oklahomans just last week. the issue of net neutrality came up in that conversation. a gentleman there who publishes content on the internet said

he's very concerned about net neutrality and wanted to make sure that the content that he had he could continue to publish and he would not have to go to every single i.s.p., inter net service provider across k the country and negotiate a deal with them. and that's what happens with net neutrality. i said it's very interesting. has that happened to you? have you faced that? and he said no, but i'm afraid i might. here's the problem we have with this conversation about net neutrality. for 20 years the internet functioned under a very clear set of rules. the federal communications commission had a set of rules for both content providers and for the fiber, the internet service providers. a clear set of rules. they couldn't violate any trade practices. they couldn't do monopolies. they couldn't violate the basic rules of commerce. it was a very clear set of rules. and then two years ago the

f.c.c. -- now the f.t.c. is the one, the federal trade commission -- the f.t.c. has been the one regulating the internet for two decades the f.c.c. ded they wanted to regulate not the content and the internet service providers, just the internet service providers. so the f.c.c. in an unprecedented ruling that had already gone to court multiple times and failed, grabbed the regulatory control from the f.t.c. and said we'll take the internet service providers and we'll manage them, and you keep the content folks. that's the fight that we're in right now. it's the funniest thing to me to be in a conversation about net neutrality because the implication is the internet will not be free if the government doesn't regulate it with this particular entity, the f.c.c. when i ask people would it be okay if the government regulated with the f.t.c., federal trade commission, most people say,

well, that would be fine too. well, good, because that's the way it has been for 20 years. for 20 years there's been one set of rules on the super highway of the internet. the federal trade commission. here's what i'd like to say to people that are trying to listen and trying to figure this out. most of the arguments and the fights that have come about, costs increases and about pay prioritization and about blocking and about people monitoring content hasn't been from the internet service providers. it's been from the content folks. you tell me, when you go to you news feed and whateve media site you go to, whatever news site you go to, are there the paid commercials that come up first and then your friends that come up second? probably most of the time. are there certain bits of content that you pay more for in you're on facebook? you can put this out but you'll reach more people if you pay for it?

yes. but that's not net neutrality. the argument about net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with those content folks. it's about the internet service providers. so why do i bring this up? here's what's happened. over the past two years america has been drawn into a fight between two sets of megacompanies. google and facebook and netflix are at war with at&t and comcast and all the major internet service providers. you've got the content folks on the web fighting with the internet service providers that actually provide the fiber to connect the content. they're fighting over their business, and the way the content providers have worded it is they've said we want the internet to be neutral. we don't want to have to have customers pay more for certain content, and we don't want the internet service providers to charge more based on that content. while at the whole time the

content folks are charging people for the type of content. they're literally arguing and saying we don't want them to do what we do every single day. with a google does every day, what facebook does every day. in fact, they fight about we don't want to filter out content internet service providers to filter out content when of late facebook seems to put out every week a new release about how they're filtering content from places that they don't like. here's what we really want. a fair, flat playing field for everyone. everyone that wants to do free speech can do free speech on the internet. that if you want to start a new business, you can put up a website on the internet, and you don't have to worry about somebody filtering you out. this is not china, a place where they'll filter out and decide whether you can put your content out. this is the united states of america. and everybody wants their

content to be able to go out and to be fair and to not have someone judge it. that's what we want with an open internet. by the way, that's what you have if the federal trade commission goes back to regulating as they have for 20 years. i ask a simple question: was the internet open and fair for content in 2015? i believe it was. if you check your history books, from three years ago i think you'll find that the internet was open in 2015. facebook was out there. netflix was out there. youtube was out there. it was open in 2015. we're not talking about any set of rules different than how the internet operated in theufrbt. but what we -- in 2015. what we don't want to have is two different sets of rules where this set of companies, the googles, facebooks and nettp*f lix get to tell the phi but

how -- the fiber how 0 to do their business. let them compete. and a lot of people say there's only a few internet service providers that are out there. in the united states there are 4,500 internet service providers that are out there. yes, there are some big ones, but there are a lot of small ones. and if the big ones misbehave, guess what happens? competition will beat them down. in those small companies, will beat them because the big companies get out of line. it's the way america works and the way competition works when you keep it fair and open. it's a misnomer to talk about net neutrality, as if it's not neutral right now. there are a lot of fears and a lot o innuendos. there's a lot of accusations of what ifs and maybe they'll come out and i'm afraid the bogeyman is going to come and take over the internet. but really what's happening is two giant sets of companies are competing and asking the government to jump in the

middle, and the googles and facebooks and netflixs are asking this government to go give restrictions to internet service providers that they are not willing to actually have themselves. why don't we just do this, let everybody compete and not try to have the government in between. can we have net neutrality where we don't have blocking of content, where we have fair trade rules, where we make sure everybody gets access to the internet? yes. we can have that when the federal trade commission actually oversees those rules as they have for two decades. it's a lot of hyperbole in this. i wish there were just more facts coming to the table at the same time the hyperbole were coming out. the simplest conversation i can have is a conversation i had with a mayor not long ago. we were talking through the complexity of this, about fiber networks, about broadband and capabilities and speeds and all

these things and he said hold on, i'm a mayor. can we talk about water pipes for a minute? and i said sure. he said so what you're telling me is there's lots of water going in the water pipe and lots of people that are using that water, and we've got to find a fair way to be able to get all that water out because there's more water trying to get into that pipe than we can actually get out on the other end and it's backing up? and i said yes, -- yes, sir, but it's zeros and ones through fiber, not water through a pipe. he said, i can get that, let's just keep it fair so that every person who wants to get access to it gets access to it and we're not discriminating on the water coming through the pipe. it's pretty easy. we can do that with the federal trade commission. tomorrow i had chairing a subcommittee, and we will have th chairman of the f.c.c. and do for a two-hour.t.c. sit

conversation, and i'm sure much of it will be on this issue of net neutrality. my encouragement is for people to actually listen in and get the facts about net neutrality, not the emotion, and not what the googles, facebooks, and netflix are telling you what to think because they are competing against the other guys and come get the real facts. we'll lay the facts on the table and if there's an area that needs new rules, but frankly, i don't see why the federal government should get into the business of free speech and telling people what they can and can't say. let's keep the internet open and free and fair and not block content, but let's also not try to jump between two sets of mega companies and picks winners and losers. let's keep it open and stop telling business how to run their business. with that, mr. president, i yield back.

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

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, today before the senate is the question of whether we will continue to have a free and open access to the internet in the united states of america. every day millions of americans log on. they rely on the internet to help their child with his or her homework assignment, have a father video call his mother who

may live three states away, help a small business woman make a sale to a customer half way across the world. currently, the people who use the internet in the united states, and others like them, are free to enjoy the internet as they wish. when you logged on this morning, you have the same access to the internet as every other american. there's no fear that some internet provider is going to step in and say, wait a minute, we're going to slow down your service until you pay us more money or limit your access to certain apps or information based on whether you pay an additional fee. what a contrast that is to things like cable television, what package did you buy, how many channels are in there, how much access do you have, are you going to pay the bill next month? it's quite a bit different than our access to the internet.

currently users around the country are enjoying a free access to an open and neutral internet. but that's all about to change. it's about to change because this new president and his new head of the federal communications commission believes that our access to the internet should be for sale. in fact, this administration thinks everything ought to be for sale, public lands, our privacy, and in this case our pathway to information, unfettered pathway to information. so thanks to the leadership of ed markey of massachusetts and. of - and many of my colleagues we come today to discuss this fundamental issue. this is a rare day in the united states senate. we are actually discussing an issue of substance on the floor. i welcome the visitors for this historic moment. we are waiting to vote tomorrow

on whether or not the trump administration's federal communications commission which ends net neutrality is going to succeed or fail. luckily we were joined by at least one republican. i didn't look at the final roll call, to move us forward in this debate. all the democrats and at least one republican, and we preveiled. tomorrow we hope to do the same. we hope it will be done on a bipartisan basis as well. follow this debate because my guess is it's going to impact you and your life. the trump administration and the federal communications commission, if they have their way, are going to change our access to the internet, every single family, every single business, every single doctor, the list goes on. in december they voted, -- they voted, the f.c.c., to put the needs of companies ahead of consumers and to undo net neutrality in the united states. this great party on the other side of the aisle that talks about freedom -- we want

americans to have fedom - want to take away our freedom for access to the internet. why? so somebody can buy parts of it and sell it back to us. untheir new plan, the f.c.c. would allow new companies to freely block or slow down any american's access to websites based on the company's financial interest and would allow paid priorization practices which create internet fast lanes and slow lanes based on who can afford to pay more for the service. what a change from what we have today. everyone has a favorite website they visit every day. i race here in the morning and get back to the newspapers in illinois, for example, to see what's going on in my home state. well, what if one day you typed in the address of that newspaper and nothing popped up? or you were able to visit it but it took twice as long to download it. remember those days when you

used to deal with dialup? some of the young people in the chamber are probably scratching their head, what is dial up all about? those days did exist and it was a much different world in the internet which we could return to because of this f.c.c. decision. this could be the reality. under the trump administration's federal communications commission commission. for internet providers they can discriminate against specific content on the internet and be free to do so in the name of competition. for consumers, it means less service, higher costs, and for entrepreneurs and small businesses there's also a risk. i had a meeting this morning with the realtors of illinois. there were about 20 of them. there was a committee meeting. they said the first item on the agenda is net neutrality. i said realtors, net neutrality. i said, explain.

well, people now are looking at homes on the internet. perspective homes do video tours of these homes. we want our customers to have access to the internet so they can go shopping for their next home. we think it's good for american business. so do i, but not the federal communications commission. the internet has given the businesses not only abscess to customers but a global reach and ability to compete with companies large and small. success isn't determined on how rich your business is. it's how good your product is. if our country wants to grow its economy and continue to lead the world in innovation, we cannot allow the internet to become a place where businesses impose a pay-to-play scenario. i can't understand how the other party, this party of individualism and freedom, wants to take this freedom away from the american people. if the f.c.c.'s harmful new plan is allowed to take effect, consumers, businesses, and

hardworking families will be hurt. it's no wonder public support for net neutrality is overwhelming. america gets it. the federal communication commission and the president may not, but america understands this. all over the country, students, teachers, businesses, individuals, families are all making their voices heard. and i encourage them to continue to do so. we need more republicans to stand up for your freedom. we need more republican senators to join us in what should be a strong bipartisan effort. the f.c.c. has announced that its radical plan to end net neutrality will take effect next month. next month. unless congress stops it. we're starting today with this vote in the senate. we'll finish it tomorrow. and then if we're successful, it goes across the rotunda to the house. if they do nothing, your right to the internet is going to be destroyed.

today every senator will have the chance to tell their constituents exactly where they stood on this issue of personal freedom. whether content on the internet should be treated equally and consumer access be a matter of how much you can pay. i think the answer is obvious. so do the overwhelming majority of americans. with the republican party -- would the republican party please join us in a bipartisan effort to stand up for something that americans across the board support? i urge my colleagues to support the concept of net neutrality and the c.r.a. resolution before the senate. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that my intern be allowed to have privileges of the floor for the balance of the day? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. merkley: we have watched in 2017, last year, a series of battles related to the very fundamental vision of our

constitution, whether we're going to do the people's work or going to be a senate run by the most powerful and privileged in america? there's no question how that came out. it was the powerful and the privileged. three major things happened in 2017. the first was a health bill designed to destroy health care for some 30 million americans thereby also affecting everybody else by rising the cost of health care and putting our rural health care clinics and our rural hospitals out of business. that was a bill for the powerful and the privileged and against the people. then we had the tax bill, a bill that borrows a trillion and a half dollars from the next generation. our pages on the floor here are the next generation. we give the bill to them and then gave the proceeds to the very richest americans increasing, accelerating

inequality in wages and inequality in wealth. that is legislation by and for the powerful, not we the people. and then we saw the theft of a supreme court seat. done directly to maintain a court case called citizens united that allows the wealthiest americans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to drown out the voice of the people here in our democratic republic. that is government by and for the powerful and the privileged instead of the people. wouldn't it be amazing if this chamber actually believed in this constitution, this vision of distributed power among the voting citizens so we will have as jefferson said laws that reflect the bill of the people. well, here we are today with another issue that is a battle between the vision of our

constitution and government by and for the powerful. it's called net neutrality. and what is net neutrality? well, it's making the internet a place where we can all participate on an equal foundation, the freedom to have a full right to participate in the information world of today and tomorrow, a full opportunity to participate on a leve level-playing field and the economic battle ground of today and tomorrow. freedom. that's what net neutrality is about. this what the federal communications commission wants. it wants to have a fast lane for the rich and powerful and it wants to have a slow lane where you're hardly moving at all for the rest of us, all of working america, stuck here in a congested internet while they sell off the fast lane to the

wealthiest. that's what this is about. now, the f.c.c., the federal communications commission, proceed in its decision to take away equality on the internet, to ignore the technical experts, to produce studies that were debunked by the experts, and to conduct a fraudulent public comment period where bots, robo tiesed -- robotized comments were filed. they didn't want america to weigh in legitimately. we said redo the comment period and put up an interface to stop the bots so real people can weigh in, real input from real americans. that's we the people government. and the f.c.c. said no way because we are bent on our track. what was their track? to allow discrimination on the internet by the type of user, to allow discrimination on the

internet based on the type of business or the type of social content, to allow discrimination on the internet by the site or website. to allow discrimination based on the software application. is it safari or is it google? why is that? because the internet service providers can sell through that license to discriminate a fast lane to the rich and powerful while the rest of us are stuck in traffic. it's totally unfair. people in america get it. they understand that this is the opposite of what it means to have government that reflects the will of the people. if we go to our founders, james madison said the advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty, the advancement of diffusion of

knowledge is guardian and liberty. today a sizable share of the members of the senate want to shut down advancement and diffusion of knowledge on a level playing field and sell our rights to equality to the highest bidder. they want to put the modern user, the student, the child, the math teacher, the entrepreneur, the small business, they want to lock them in chains and say we're taking away your freedom to participate in the public square on an equal basis. that is simply wrong. and we know it's wrong because millions of americans are weighing in. i've had in my office phone calls o se days that are 100-1, one or two or three people arguing that sure, let

the powerful sell off our free dwom but -- freedom, but for every one of those folks, a hundred citizens saying no way. fight for fairness. fight for equality. fight for our freedom to participate on a level playing field. oh, we hear it from all kinds of small businesses, more than 6,000 informally weighed in. we hear from all kinds of organizations. i hear it from the realtors. i hear it from the restaurant owners. everyone who isn't one of these super elite in america wants equal participation and freedom on the internet. but there's a whole host of colleagues today that are considering voting for the elite and rich and powerful over their constituents. i encourage you to rethink your priorities because we have a responsibility under our constitution to do government by

and for the people, not the powerful. we've heard from chiropractors. we heard from people who do music venues. we've heard from graphic design artists, medical start-ups. we heard from everyone across the spectrum saying give me a fair chance to compete. a fair chance to compete. that is an american value. let us not trounce that value into the mud today. i anticipate at 3:00 we're going to have a vote on this floor and a majority of the senate, a slim majority is going to fight for freedom. and the rest are going to say no way, i'm not fighting for the freedom. i'm fighting for the big and powerful people in america. that's just wrong. but then this bill will go to the house. when it goes to the house, there will be another battle. so having won here by a slim

margin, a slim bipartisan margin, we have to win in the house. which means that we need american people to weigh in. because here's the thing. the rich and powerful, they really want to wing this fight. oh, they're going to -- win this fight. oh, they're going to be spending a lot of money to win this fight. they're going to be sending a lot of lobbyists down the hall to win this fight. so we have to have the people of america weigh in and let them know across the hall, down the hall, down this road to the house that as the people's house, they should do the people's business. so let us set the example here in the senate. let's not have a slim majority fight for freedom for americans. let's have the entire body weigh in with a robust, extensive majority fighting, fighting for freedom on the internet. let's win this battle today. an let's win it in a few days down the hal

thank you, mr. president. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, yesterday president trump joined republican senators for lunch. he was very optimistic, very positive about a lot of the developments in america's foreign policy in places like nortnorth korea. at the same time we all recognize that the world continues to be a very dangerous place. national security must be our first responsibility. my goal is a nation that is safe, strong, and secure. now, to have safety and security at home, we need peace and stability abroad. republicans in congress understand that. so does president trump and so does gina haspel. that's why the senate select

committee on intelligence today approved gina haspel's nomination to lead the central intelligence agency. it was a bipartisan vote. you know, that used to be the normal way things operated around here, in a bipartisan way. when you had a nominee who was undeniably qualified, they got support from both sides of the aisle. it's become very uncommon over the past democrats have decided to obstruct president trump's nominees from important jobs almost at any cost. well, gina haspel got this rare bipartisan approval from the committee for the right reasons. because she is the right person for this job. now we'll have a vote on the senate floor. you know, this should be one of the easiest votes for members of the senate to cast all year. the director of the central intelligence agency is a very important member of the president's national security team. she's the right person for the job. she's been a career intelligence officer for 33 years. that goes back to the days of the ronald reagan

administration. she actually got interested in the c.i.a. when she learned that women could serve there doing clandestine work all around the world. she served in africa, in russia, in central europe, in asia, and she's held top jobs at the agency's headquarters. she understands every element of the work of america's intelligence community. since she is actually the acting head of the agency today, i think anyone would be hard-pressed to say that she's not up to the job because she is doing the job. she has the faith and the trust of the men and women in the field who keep us safe every day. let's not forget that she's also worked very closely with mike pompeo. he was head of the c.i.a. now he's secretary of state. having two people in these important jobs who already have a solid, respectful working relationship is extremely important for making sure that the united states foreign policy is air tight. no one else that the president could have nominated who would

have been able to work as closely with secretary of state pompeo. she's an expert on terrorism. she's an intelligence expert. she's a national security expert. she began her work at the c.i.a. during the cold war. so she has a deep understanding of russia and a deep understanding of our challenges there. i think it's -- gina l haspel is an essentially vital nominee. the list of people who have come out and endorsed her nomination goes on and on. at least six former -- six former -- leaders of the central intelligence agency have all come out publicly to praise her qualifications and her abilities. c.i.a. directors under president obama, under president bush, under president clinton, republicans and democrats alike, all agree she's the right person for this job. look at what they've had to say. michael hayden was director

he, gina haspel is the person america needs at the c.i.a. he said, she is someone you want in the room when big decisions are being made. or look what leon panetta said, who had the job under president obama. he said that he was glad that the she would be the first woman to head the agency because, he said, frankly, she's someone who really knows the c.i.a. inside out. look at john brennan. he also ran the agency for president obama. he said in an interview that she has the experience, the breadth and the deputy on intelligence issues over many, many years. it's clear that this is someone who is very highly regarded by people who know her, people who worked with her and people who have relied on her judgment and her expertise. that expertise and that clear-eyed judgment is more important today than perhaps at any other time since the end of

the cold war. our nation's adversaries are cunning, they are opportunistic and they are aggressive. we face challenges in dealing with syria, dealing with isis. we have a lot of work ahead of us in iran. next month president trump will be meeting with north korea to try to end their nuclear program. now, i remain skeptical about north korea, and so do a lot of republicans in the senate. but this is the best opportunity we have ever had to try to get nuclear weapons out of north korea. the president needs his full team in place. this isn't a simple political game for democrats to play for tv cameras. this is about peace and security of the world and safety and strength for the united states. as a c.i.a. officer for more than 30 years, gina haspel has had to make tough decisions to keep our country safe. the decision we face to confirm her nomination to be director of

the central intelligence agency is not a tough decision at all. i will vote loud and clear in support of her nomination. and when she's confirmed, all americans will be able to sleep soundly -- soundly knowing that she is on the job providing the security that we all need. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. will be, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to thank you and thank all of my colleagues here today. this has been a very important debate to have on the floor of

the united states senate. it's a debate over whether or not we are going to continue to have a free and open internet. this vote is a test of the united states senate and the american people are watching very closely. this vote is about small businesses, librarians, school teachers, innovators, social advocates, youtubeers, college students and millions of other americans who have spoken with one voice to say, access to the internet is our right, and we will not sit idly by while this administration stomps on that right. this vote is our moment to show our constituents that the united states senate can break through the partisanship and break past the powerful outside influences to do the right thing. the right thing for our economy,

the right thing for our democracy, the right thing for our consumers, and the right thing for our future. this is common sense to americans around the country, with the only exception being telecom lobbyists and lawyers inside the beltway. how do i know? because 86% of all americans in polling agree that net neutrality should stay on the books as the law of the united states. the public is telling us loud and clear to vote for this resolution. they're telling us that they don't trust their internet service provider to show up on time for a customer service appointment at their house, so they certainly don't trust them to put consumers ahead of profits. they're telling us that once

they pay their internet bill, they expect fair access to the internet. they're telling us that they are sick of the special interests getting their way while the rest of us get the short end of the stick. so i ask each and every one of my colleagues today to heed the calls of the american people to keep the internet open, to keep the pnciple of of what the internet has been and must continue to be, not just for the most powerful voices but for those that are the smallest voices inside of our society. and that includes entrepreneurs, who just last year received half of all venture capital in the united states, which went to

software and internet start-ups. that is what we need. we need to understand how this incredibly chaotic, entrepreneurial system in our country works, and at the heart of it is net neutrality. i had just two weeks ago up in massachusetts a meeting with 500 people on net neutrality. i invited tim burner's league, the inventor of the worldwide web. tim burner's league, was selected by "time" magazine as one of the 20 greatest thinkers, scientists, innovators of the 20th century. who else was on the list with him? sigmund freud, edison, henry ford, tim burners lee.

the inventor of the worldwide web, the organizing principle of the web. and what he said was that the principles of nondiscrimination are baked into the internet. it was his intent to have it work that way, so that there could be no discrimination. that is what we're talking about here. a fundamental change which the largest companies now want to implement in order for them to ensure that competitors cannot compete as well as they could if they could not be discriminated against, that consumers have the protections which they need so that they are not harmed, so that this innovation economy can continue to unleash itself for the benefit of the united states

so that we are number one looking over our shoulders, number two, three, four, five, six in the world. the internet and its success is a story about the united states being number one, not any individual company. and certainly not a small handful of broadband companies. that is why the rest of the world envies what we have in our country, this incredible engine of innovation which has created millions of new jobs since the 1996 telecommunications act was passed, since this digital revolution was unleashed. we must keep these principles intact. that is what we are debating here today on the floor of the united states senate. we are debating in essence what the principles should be for

this organizing principle of our country for the 21st century which is the internet. and from my perspective, the only way in which every american, every entrepreneur, every new idea is going to have a shot at helping to make our country better is if net neutrality stays on the books. so this is a defining vote. the most important vote that we're going to have in this generation on the internet. the whole country is watching. 86% of all voters support net neutrality. 82% of all republicans support net neutrality. if it's not broke, don't fix it. it's working. and it worked for the smallest voices and take the largest voices -- and for the largest

voices. what the huge internet companies, the internet providers want to do is tilt the playing field. well, it was a long route to get to this era. we had one telephone company, one cable company, monopolies going into people's homes. it took a lot to get away from that era so that smaller voice, newer voices could be heard. and when that happens, it unleashed trillions of dollars of private sector investment that these software and internet companies, these innovators were now able to gain access to. they could have done it if the rules had made it possible before we changed the laws in the 1990's. but since then, they have. and it reinvented -- they have reinvented not just the united states of america, but they have reinvented the whole word. and there's a vocabulary which has been created since 199 word that now everyone thinks

are common. gole, amazon, e-mail, hulu, youtube, they didn't exist. they didn't have a role in our society. we had to change the rules in order to make it possible for them. and there's a whole new list of generations whose names we do not know but because of net neutrality, they will be known. they will be the job creators for the next several decades in our country. and so, ladies and gentlemen, i thank all of the members who participated in this debate. there won't be a more important one that we because it goes right to the heart of our identity as a free and open society. so i urge my fellow senators to vote yes on my congressional review act resolution to restore the net neutrality rules to the books and, mr. president, i

yield back the balance of my time.

mr mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, we're about to vote on the resolution of disapproval dealing with this issue of net neutrality. let me say again what i said at the beginning of this discussion earlier today. and that is that i support principles of net neutrality that can be enshrined in law, that actually do address the issues that people on the other side are concerned about, whether that's a ban on blocking of lawful content, a ban on throttling of internet speeds, a ban on paid prioritization that would create fast lanes and that sort of thing.

those are things that i think is pretty broad agreement. frankly, it seems to me at least that there's bipartisan support for pursuing a legislative solution to this, to put into law, to codify once and for all those principles of an open internet. but instead we're having this fake argument over a congressional review act resolution of disapproval which is going nowhere and my colleagues on the other side know that. and all it does is just prolong the period of uncertainty that we've been operating in now for some time where internet service providers are not putting money investing in new technologies and innovation and infrastructure. instead investing in lawyers and litigation as this cloud of uncertainty hangs over the regulation of the internet. and what our colleagues on the other side are proposing is simply this. that is, to regulate the internet like a public utility

in the same way that mabell was regulated in the 1930's. because the law they would use to regulate the internet is title 2 of the 1934 communications act. so basically what we're saying is we want to take a law that's 80 years old and use it to regulate a 21st century innovation like the internet. the internet which explode unde theight-touch regime that was in place up until 2015. so in 20 is a the f.c.c. decided that they wanted to use the heavy hand of government regulation as opposed to the light touch and so what this f.c.c. has said simply that we're going to go back to the light touch of regulation that was in place for the first two decades of its existence and two decades that led to explosive growth, dramatic increases in productivity, economic opportunity for americans all over the country, and so here we are today talking about a

congressional review act resolution of disapproval that would role back that f.c.c. decision in an attempt to restore and put back in place the heavyhanded regulation of title 2 out of the 1934 communications act. so i think frankly that we can solve this issue quite simply, and that is to sit down in a bipartisan way, figure out a way to put those -- enshrine in law those principles of an open internet that would ban the things i just talked about, ban blocking, ban throttling, ban pay prioritization, but do it in a way that doesn't draw on the title 2 authority that essentially gives the f.c.c. the authority if they want to to regulate rates. i mean, this is a heavyhanded government approach to regulating the most powerful economic engine that we've seen literally in generations. and so i think that the clear vote here today is in favor of

legislation that would put those -- codify, put those rules in effect. and against a congressional review act resolution of disapproval, which is simply an attempt to, i guess, gain partisan advantage, you know, with an issue that people seem to think will be useful in the upcoming elections. but, honestly, it's not going anywhere. we all know that. and i think the sooner we conclude that, the sooner we get serious about sitting down together across from each other and actually putting into law these principles of an open internet, the better off we're all going to be. now, i mentioned this earlier today. there are a number of our colleagues who have made statements publicly, as recently as yesterday, at a subcommittee hearing -- commerce subcommittee hearing, where they supported that apropose of bipartisan legislation -- that approach of bipartisan legislation. i've had colleagues on the other side who have made public statements, and i quoted some of

them today, in support of a legislative solution along the lines of what i am proposing here. and of course we've had multiple examples of misstatements and hyped-up statements that aren't grounded in any sense of reality, so much so that even "the washington post" factchecker said that the statements that were being made by the democrats warranted three pinocchios, three pinocchios. "the l.a. times" editorial just this last week editorialized, ann quote, rather than jousting over a resolution of disapproval, congress needs to put this issue to bed once and for all by crafting a bipartisan deal giving the commission limited but year authority to -- clear authority to regulate broadband providers and to preserve net neutrality. that's the way to do this, mr. president. it's not to have an f.c.c. thanes bos back and forth from administration to administration at the whims of whatever the

political policies are. millions and millions of dollars that could be spent investing in new infrastructure that could lever higher, faster speeds is, higher quality of services to people across this country and including those in rural areas who have missed out on a lot of this. you're not going to get broadband to invest if they're operating under a cloud of uncertainty, which is what this c.r.a., if successful, would lead to. so i would ask our colleagues on both sides is of the aisle to reject this ill-fated and, frankly, just charade of animes that we're going through here -- charade of an exercise that we're going here in exchange for a true discussion of bipartisan legislation. i have a draft from 2015 that we put together and i've had

numerous opportunities to discuss that draft with others on the other side. we've shopped them around. certainly is not the end-all product. but that's what legislation is all about. it is about the opportunity to sit down, come up with a bipartisan solution and i think that's certainly in our reach here if we're just willing to do it. but this is not the way to do it. this is a dead-end canyon which does nothing to solve the issue, and all it does is perhaps whip up some people who, you know, are perhaps interested in trying to use this as a political wedge issue. but it's not going to do anything to solve the problem. so i would urge my colleagues to reject and vote no on this resolution of disapproval and let's get serious about legislating. mr. president, i would yield back the balance of our time. the presiding officer: all time has been yielded back. the clerk will read the title of

the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 40 406, s.j. res. 52, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code and so forth. the presiding officer: question is on passage of the joint resolution. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: