vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 64, the nays are 34, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask for order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. schumer: now, in a few moment, the senate will take the first procedural vote on a chips bill that will fight inflation, boost american manufacturing, ease our supply chains, and protect american security

interests. this is one of the important votes that we will take this session, because advancing this bill is crucial for lowering costs, solving our nation's chip shortage, and making sure america remains competitive in the 21st century. america will fall behind in so many areas if we don't pass this bill. we could very well lose our ranking as the number one economy and innovator in the world if we can't pass this. lower costs, more jobs, a stronger economy, that's the recipe behind this bill, and it spells good news for the american people today and for decades to come. i want to thank both my democratic and republican colleagues for working together for more than a year on these policies. i want to thank senator cantwell, our very able, dedicated, and hard-working committee chair, as well as senators wicker and cornyn and warner and kelly and sirn ma, as well as our con -- and sinema,

as well as our conference members, and as well the many individual senators on both sides who contributed to this legislation. this has been bipartisan work in the senate at its best. something that we have done on several pieces of legislation this year, and i hope we can do more. and do it more often. now, on the procedure, members should know this vote will be a test vote and a favorable outcome will allow the science portion of usica to be included in this bill. let me explain. this vote will be a motion to proceed on a house message, which we will use as a vehicle to pass our chips legislation. it only requires 50 votes to proceed, but if we can get enough votes to comfortably withstand a filibuster, i will amend this chips itc bill to include the science provisions that so many of my colleagues, led by senators cantwell and wicker, have worked on so hard

to secure. i want everyone to understand -- a yes vote on this motion to proceed indicates members will vote yes on cloture on a package that includes chips, itc, iran and the sipes provisions. as you all know, i am a strong support of the science provisions. i was the original author along with senator young of many of these policies under the endless frontiers act. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this vote and i thank senator young for his two-year partnership on this legislation. however, folks, if this vote doesn't produce enough votes to comfortably withstand a filibuster, we'll move forward with the chips, iran, and itc provisions here on the floor. it is my preference for the senate to include the science provisions in this bill because they are so important for the future of our country, and i'm very optimistic we'll see a

strong, bipartisan vote later today. now, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. it is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president, it is my understanding that the senate has received a message from the house of representatives to encourage -- to accompany h.r. 4346. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. schumer: i ask that the chair lay before the senate the message to accompany h.r. 4346 and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

client placement to which includes restoring semiconductor manufacturing to america and giving american workers and american companies or tools they need to compete u.s. dominance and called a semi conductor manufacturing has dwindled for decades. it is an economic at a national security concern. the u.s. is already love the world and ship design. we came up with this technology but our share of the global chip it manufacturing technology over the past 30 years has gone from 37%, down to less than 12% today. as a result were relied more and more on foreign countries for these essential chips. in the past few years the supply chain is not been reliable. you know that if you tried to

buy a car recently, maybe even a washing machine, you had to wait forever. why? because the lack of semi conductors. these chips are just not available. we've all come to in recent years they are the building blocks of everything. automobiles, cell phones, computer, household appliances, medical equipment but also military systems and weaponry. like the f35. the mark digital economy by the way demand for the semi conductors will only continue to grow. last or the lack of semi conductors causing estimated loss of $240 billion to u.s. a gross domestic product. 250 billion-dollar hit to our economy according to the apartment of commerce last year just because a supply chain issues with semi conductors. this is more complicated that the key role our adversaries play in the production of the semi conductors and the fact we rely on nations for the

components brittney on gas which is critical for the laser and printing of the chips comes largely from ukraine. taiwan is the number one semi conductor fabricator in the world. by the way 90% of the high-end chips are made in taiwan, none are made here in america anymore. 90%. of course taiwan's proximity to china and the constant threat of invasion by china adds to the urgency of diversifying the semi conductor supply chain. by incentivizing companies to make these critical components here in america, we can make our supply chain more resilient per week and protector national security, and we can boost economies all across the country. that is way chips is so important we will work in a bipartisan fashion in congress through legislation like this and the broader legislation. this legislation would work to improve our nation's competitiveness generally and foreign relations and national security, domestic manufacturing, education trade, and other matters. the chips act specifically would

bring $52 billion in federal investments for domestic semi conductor, design, and manufacturing. the broader built the so-called you seek a bill last year past this senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. we had hoped the house would simply pass the senate approved bill because it was already bipartisan to be worked out democrats and republicans are the senate 19 republican support all 50 democrat center to per the white house supported it. but, instead the house sat on it. it took them almost a year, 11 months to pass their bill. when they passed it was filled with all sorts of unrelated items no republican could support. that is why this is gone so slowly. so earlier this summer we began conferencing the house and the senate bills to try to find common ground between the two bills but made some congress both chambers have yet to agree on a final product. meanwhile there's an urgency to get this done. because it is critical to decisions that employers are making right now.

to create and bring semiconductor manufacturing factories and jobs to america or to some other country. in january intel announced its plan to build a $20 billion site consisting of two semi conductor in the united states and in my home state of ohio. this is the largest investment out in ohio's history by far pretty comes with a grand total of again $20 billion, we hope that is just a start but intel has said time and time again at the chips act funding is enacted this will move forward and move forward quickly. they have also said if it moves forward, the chips act, that it could be extended to $20 billion up to 100 billion-dollar investment in ohio remember the 20 billion is already historically that is because they continue to build not just tube it up to ten. for thousand acre site in ohio could be home to up to eight additional and make central ohio the silicon heartland. this to be great for my state,

great for our region and great for our country. this initial investment by the way would create about 10,000 good paying job 3000 site eventually all good paying high-paying jobs with good benefits but also 7000 good paying construction jobs and putting it together for tens of thousands of additional engineering, supplier, restaurant, housing, healthcare and entertainment jobs to support the region as it expands thanks to this investment. suppliers alone will be tens of thousands of new jobs. ohio start a project of this investment led $2.8 billion to the states gdp and that is just the start. investment put in ohio as well as similar efforts in arizona with the presiding officers from, texas, or my colleagues hundred corn his friend was here on the floor with us today put all perfect demonstrations of what this investment in semiconductor incentives can mean to american workers and american companies. china has committed a lot more than we are talking about. by the way a lot of other

countries this is not a free market situation. one of my colleagues today asked me shouldn't let the market decide customer if the market decide jon is offering one or $50 billion, which they are of the next ten years, when europe has its own equivalent legislation to ours and is offering tens of billions of dollars or tens of billions of year old, or in south korea or when japan, or when taiwan are offering these huge incentives it is very difficult to see us being able to bring these chips back to america were costs are a little higher and be able to be competitive. we need that to happen for our domestic economy but also our national security. if we fail to act to him as a key opportunity to boost our competitive edge in the nation. these will go elsewhere. i would also like to see us include some the other key pieces of the broader you see the builders passed on a bipartisan basis. again , of the support of that here in the side pathetic with critical investments in research. also keep protections to be sure

that research is not stolen by foreign governments such as china. we've got to her the overall goal of this effort is to improve our country's competitiveness especially with regard to china. to do that we must not only invest in research and innovation, which i strongly support, but we must protect that taxpayer-funded research and intellectual property from being taken by our competitors like china and used against us. i believe, given current reality without such protections any bill with significant increased levels of federal funding for research would be a huge giveaway to beijing. why do i say that? because i've worked on this issue for the past four years. we have investigated we passed legislation, recently fbi director ray said it well, the biggest threat we face he said, is a country from countering intelligence perspective is the people's republic of china particular the chinese communist party where they are targeting our innovation, our trade system

secrets, intellectual property and scale that is unprecedented in history". that is the director of the fbi. senator on the other side they'll introduce the safeguarding american innovation act and insisted it be included in the legislation and order for us to support it. that was my condition for supporting the broader bill. this came after we did a year-long study with a permanent subcommittee on investigations that found, shockingly, how china had use what are called talent programs for two decades. two decades to target the most promising taxpayer paid research and researchers. and to take that technology that intellectual property back to china. without at the american taxpayers have been unwittingly be funding the rise of china's military and economy over the past two decades in the federal government had done very little to nothing to stop it. in fact when the fbi testified in our hearing they acknowledge that. they said we have not been

focused on us the past couple decades like we should have been that were going to now and they started to read the starting to make arrests you probably heard about some of these arresting scientists all over the country who are abusing our lax attitude toward protecting research by taking research back to china and using it often against us. this legislation goes directly to the root of the problem it makes a punishable by law to knowingly fail to disclose foreign funding on federal grant applications. that is not a lot now for the fbi has asked us for that law it requires executive branch to streamline and coordinate federal agencies so there's continuity, accountability and coordination bird that does not happen now. it is too wide open. it is not coordinated. it allows a state department to deny visas to foreign researchers were coming to the united states to exploit the openness of our research enterprise. it requires research institutions and universities to do much more including telling the state department whether a foreign researcher will have

access to export control technologies. we have worked on this legislation again for the past few years. we have made lots of compromises and concessions of people had potential concerns about it. we have come up with legislation that is bipartisan, make sense it is already passed again with overwhelming margin here in the united states senate. and i want to be sure before we spend billions of dollars more in federal research, which is being proposed and clinched the national science foundation, that research could be perfected, who could be against that question record could be for china having better access to this information? nobody. again, a vital component of competitive bill is commonsense extensively negotiate a bipartisan bill which is already included in the homeland security title. i cannot stress enough the importance of a passing this legislation print should be done on a bipartisan basis because it has been done before. it just makes sense. the broader bill and the chips bill are both important.

to pass the chips legislation is a critical right now, it is urgent. and then we can pass in terms of you seek is also important. reporting more money into researchers which is being proposed that i support, it has to be protected that is pretty simple and common sense. there is no perfect bill. this bill helped give america's economy competitive rate help keep american jobs here and grow new jobs good paying jobs with good benefits. we should pass this legislation, get it through the house and take it to the president's desk for signature by hope my colleagues will join me in supporting. thank you and to yield the floor. >> madam president pickwick senator from texas. >> madam president i want to express my gratitude to the senator for ohio first excellent remarks and for his support getting us to the point we are today, which is on the cusp of a

historic accomplishment. and that is to make sure the supply lines of advanced semi conductors remains available to american businesses and even more importantly, to our national security. now, two years goes senator warned the senior senator from vermont and i introduce the chips for america act. and it has been a long strange trip until today. but, i daresay at the time we introduce the bill there were many people did not of the difference between chocolate chips and microchips. and frankly, that is an exaggeration but the point is most people are really unaware of the dependency of our economy international security, frankly the quality of our life on access to these microcircuits known as semi conductors.

and over time the semi conductor manufacturer has been able to make them smaller, and smaller, and more and more powerful until your cell phone which is essentially a mini computer, contains thousands of these microchips. and again, whether you or talk about laptop computer, or a new car, or a washing machine, or just some desktop computer, all of them depend on axis to semi conductors senator warner and i introduce the bipartisan chips for america act two years ago. eighteen months ago this became law 13 months ago the united states senate passed a bipartisan bill to fund the program. unfortunately, as a center from

ohio mentioned, the hausa failed to respond to the bipartisan bill the u.s. innovation and competition act and sent over a partisan bill which has delayed our consideration of this important legislation unnecessarily. but today i am optimistic the senate will follow up on its commitment to enact the chips funding into law before we break for the august recess. this afternoon we will take a procedural vote to kickstart consideration of the legislation. of course, as we lead up to this important vote and debate, many of us have been talking about the size and shape of the bill on both sides of the aisle. and there is still some things that need to be decided by the fate of the bill is not yet secure. date and the majority leader will ultimately be the one to determine what the size and shape of the bill will look

like. but i am encouraged by where we stand. this bill will not however be the senate's u.s. innovation competition act where the house massive partisan america competes act. this will be a far more narrow bill that focuses on the core issue of semiconductor manufacturing. semiconductor manufacturing is, as i said, the key to our economy international security. and, as it turns out, most of the manufacturing capacity has been built overseas, primarily in asia because it is significantly cheaper to build those manufacturing facilities there rather than here. i am not opposed to additional commerce provisions. for example that have already been voted on as being included. but anything else that is included bites under schumer

must be bipartisan. those decisions have to be made very quickly. the time for voting on this bill should not be delayed any further. over the last three decades the united states is gone for making 37% of these in micro circuits conductors, 37% to only about 12% now. when you look at the most advanced chip to smallest and the most powerful, none of these are made in the united states, none. now taiwan semiconductor located in taiwan has a great business model. american companies design the chips and they make them. as i said it is cheaper to make them in asia than it is here in america. but posterior covid we have come to realize the vulnerability of our supply chains for virtually everything. when you look at our dependency upon these the supply chain of

these chips and what it might mean to the country, while it is shocking. the ceo of micron out of idaho has said there is a 35 -- 45% cost gap between domestic and overseas production. now if you are talking about making toys or something like that, or furniture items is great to have a cheaper alternative where that product is manufactured overseas rather than here in america. that is good for consumers. it makes things a lot more affordable. when you are talking about a sole source for the most advanced semi conductors that goes from being a convenience, to a nightmare. and of course during the pandemic we have experienced a number of supply chain vulnerabilities. and now, as the economy around the world 34, and the

continues

mr. portman: madam chair. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: ma'am chair, i come to the floor today to once again talk about russia's brutal invasion of ukraine. before i do, i want to pause for a minute and honor the lives lost in the downing of malaysian airlines flight m.h. 17 over ukraine. knocked down by russian and russian-backed separatists. this week marks the eighth anniversary of that tragedy, all 238 passengers and 15 crew were killed. this eighth anniversary is a reminder that russia's war of aggression on ukraine didn't just start this spring. eight years ago, the people of ukraine made a courageous choice. they said they were going to stand up to a corrupt

russian-backed regime, and when they did that russia responded by invading their country, taking ukraine's crimea peninsula, but also territory here in what's called the donbas. so this is not new. for almost nine years the people of ukraine have been fighting this war with russia. more recently, of course, the invasion was even more devastating. so i join bridget brink, our new u.s. ambassador to ukraine, who said, quote, we honor the memories of those killed eight years ago, even as missiles continue to fall on mykolaiv, are dnipro, and the disregard for international law and human life. end quote. she's right. ambassador brink said it right. the civilian toll in this war is devastating. ukraine's prosecutor general

recently said that since late february of this year, 353 clish 353 children have died in this war, more than 1,000 wounded. the associated press painted a vivid picture with the killing of the 4-year-old girl named liesa. liza dmitriva. liza had down syndrome, and was on her way to see a speech therapist last thursday when her mother and she were attacked by russian missiles. she was in a town called vnistia. at least 24 people were killed that day, including liza, and two boys, 7 and 8 years old, almost it00 were -- almost 200 were wounded. liza's mother is still in intensive care. it's important to know that when the war started, liza's family fled kiev, but stayed in ukraine, fleeing to this town,

vnistia, about 167 miles southwest of kiev. they thought they could be safe there. it's well behind enemy lines. it's well behind the front lines of the battle. and yet, this is the reality of president putin's war on ukraine. it is targeting civilians. but it won't just stop in ukraine. this is why finland and sweden, in a move that just a few years ago would have seemed impossible, left a history of neutralitiity behind and -- a history of neutrality behind and joined nato. their application is in place. they see putin's brutal war and they they could be next. as recently as 2016, putin said, quote, the borders of russia never end, end quote. bears repeating because he and other kremlin leaders seem intent on restoring the russian empire, even if it means rolling

over other free and independent countries. the senate foreign relations committee took a momentous step today voting to ratify the nato applications for these two allies of the united states, sweden and finland. i was proud to vote to ratify and speak in committee about why this expansion is toe good for our national -- is so good for our national security, to have these two countries with strong militaries, strong economy join our nato alliance. i hope that the leadership of the senate will put this legislation on the floor as soon as possible so that we can show the world we are enthusiastically supporting the joining of these two countries to the nato alliance. we need to continue to show solidarity. putin hoped to divide nato, the world and the west, but he understatemented -- underestimated what would happen and the foresight and wisdom of the people of sweden and

finland, as he underestimated the courage of the people of ukraine. on the energy front, a significant development that isn't getting nearly enough attention happened last week. back in june, russia cut gas to europe via nord stream 1 pipeline by 60% because of, quote, maintenance problems. they claimed they needed gas turnines that had gone to canada to be repaired, to continue the flow of the pipeline. those turnines were prohibited -- those turbines were prohibited from being returned to russia because of the sanctions in place with regard to russian energy infrastructure. of course, what president putin's government claims to be true is often not. the reality is russia was punishing europe and trying to poke holes in the western sanctions regime. unfortunately, the russians succeeded. what happened next was discouraging. canada gave in to russia's demands last week and returned

the gas turbines. then the state department applauded this, saying somehow it was standing up to russia's energy blackmail. i understand the administration's desire to preserve allied unity in the face of russian ayetion. that's -- aggression. that's important, especially in standing up to russia in the long-term. if we're unified behind a bad policy, that unity doesn't do us much good. we saw this with nord stream 2, remember. when the biden administration sided with germany to remove sanctions on the pipe line, even though that decision undermined the security of our allies, including ukraine, and i think it sent the wrong message to russia. it's one reason they felt empowered to invade ukraine more recently. now we're seeing the same thing here. in the same of preserving unity with certain allies, we're giving in to russia's demands. unity with allies is important. instead of settling for weak policy, we should push allies to adopt stronger policies against

russia, including with regard to energy. unfortunately, russia knows by manufacturing a, quote, maintenance problem with their pipelines, our allies tend to back down on our sanctions. i wonder when will the next may maintenance problem appear. president zelenskyy called the return of the turbines to russia, quote, absolutely unacceptable, end quote. the biden administration characterized it as a counter to russia's attempt to weaponize energy. this isn't the case. it's worth noting that another crisis is looming as a result of this war. it's the direct result of russia's blockade of ukraine's ports, especially the port at odesa. here's the odesa port. there are other ports along this area into the black sea that are absolutely essential for ukraine's exports. yet, russia is blocking this em. -- is blocking them. here i cannot overstate the importance of this issue as ukraine supplies so much of the

world's food. without ports to export, that food is not making it to the people who need it badly. it is causing food shortages around the world. let me be clear. food should never be used as a weapon of war. but that's exactly what president putin is doing. the effects are far-reaching. according to the world food program, increases in the cost of food and fuel since march caused 47 million people to experience food insecurity. of those, some 50 million are close to famine. that number grows every day. to be specific, a i cording to "the wall street journal," and i quote, in somalia, ethiopia, south sudan, yemen and afghanistan, nearly 900,000 people face starvation and death. that is more than tenfold the increase from 2019. by some estimates could result in more people dying from hunger in 2022 and 2023 than in any year since the 1960's.

and china's great leap forward disastrous process. end quote. wow. the world food program provides aid for these countries, but there are shortages because of russia's war of choice, and the cost has risen. is the reports say 46%, compared to 2019. that's about 50% over the last few years. any organization, let alone one that provides humanitarian aid, would have immense problems keeping up. their increases in everyday items like vegetable oils and special nutritional paste given to children in famine or malnourished. while these problems persist, it's the most vulnerable that truly feel the cost of malnourishment. the kids and children are most at risk from the effects of hunger. their bodies from a lack of nutrients from food are too weak to fight off measles or cholera. even those who survive these terrible illnesses will often face long-term health problems that could impact them forever. we're not only facing a brutal

invasion of ukraine. we've talked about that. war crimes are being committed there every day. there's also a humanitarian crisis that is taking its toll around the world as we speak as a result of this war on ukraine and the blockade of these ports. this is a battle and we have to face the realities head-on. in a war thought to be over within weeks, the fighting continued well beyond that, and may continue for much longer. it has already gone on much longer than expected and while the ukrainians continue to show their strength, the world feels the effects of this through the global fallout. ukraine's first lady olena will speak to the congress tomorrow. i look forward to hearing what she has to say. she's been a passionate advocate for the rights of innocent ukrainian citizens who have been killed and wounded by these

russian attacks. she started her own initiative to the address the mental health impacts of russia's terrible war and the trauma that the people of ukraine have experienced. that's the kind of leadership ukraine needs frankly. it is the kind of leadership the world needs. she and her husband should be commended for their steadfastness through the destruction that vladimir putin has caused their beloved homeland. in ukraine the stakes remain hydrofluorocarbon the casualties go into the thousands -- thousands. the damage to ukraine's infrastructure, their beautiful cities, ports, schools, hospitals, day cares and apartment buildings go into the billions. this is a photograph of an apartment building that was recently bombed in the eastern port of ukraine. killing of course innocent civilians. according to the kiev school of economics, ukraine will need at least $165 billion for postwar reconstruction.

per their latest update, more than half is attributable to housing losses like this one. civilian targets of russia's unrelenting bombing campaign, neighborhoods, residential neighborhoods, homes, apartments have been hit by these russian air strikes. these are acts of terror. i'm a superior of senator graham's resolution to name russia a state sponsor of terror a i urge leadership to bring this to a vote. we voted it out of committee already. it's on the floor. let's take it up. so what happens next? we know that making any territorial concessions to russia would only embolden president putin and other future would-be concurrers. the -- conquerors. the lesson they would learn is that they can wear down the west and get what they want. we must not let that happen. we must do more to arm ukraine and help them to be able to protect themselves and to be able to win this war. it is clear that president putin

underestimated the courages, the effectiveness and resiliency of the ukrainian people and the ukrainian military. and now president putin knows what the ukrainians are capable of. by the way, the russian forces also understand this. on monica, the russian defense minister told russian troops to hit ukraine's high-mobility rocket systems or himars. he asked them to do so because of the success the ukrainians have had with just eight of these units. these are from the united states. many of us have pushed hard to get these to ukraine. they went too late. many lives were lost and cities were flattened because they did not have them early on. these rocket systems are absolutely essential because before that, a the russians could sit back and indiscriminately bomb ukrainian cities and soldiers and civilians and the ukrainian artillery could not reach them. these himar systems have a

longer range and are more accurate and they have been quite effective. only eight systems are there now. also three from the u.k., a few from germany. they need a lot more. but just this week, because of these systems, ukrainian forces killed a russian commander after himars hit a russian control and command center here in the south of ukraine. last week himars took out a russian ammunition warehouse in this region. they have now taken out a couple dozen of these ammo depots whoer in the south and in the east. -- here in the sown and in the east. -- here in the south and in the east. by reducing the russian ammunition stores, it will be much more likely that the russians will realize that this war is damaging themselves, their equipment, their soldiers and be more willing to come to the bargaining table. if this is what the ukrainians can do with just eight himars,

imagine what they can do with what they've been asking for and it what they really node, which is around 40 or 50 of these units. these are crucial to the brave ukrainian fighters as ukraine continues its effort to defend itself from these russian air strikes and missile strikes. finally, ukrainian forces have missiles with adequate ability to reach these command posts. russia will still have the advantage of more missiles, more men, more rockets, and their attacks are relentless. president zelenskyy highlighted this when he said on monday that russia has fired thousands of cruise missiles and rockets during this war. thousands. he's often come in the middle of the -- these often come in the middle of the night and hit places like a city located here right here kiersov. rockets will also hit apartment complexes as we saw, and shopping malls. here is a shopping mall that russians attacked a few weeks

ago. this is a shopping mall much as you would see in the united states of america. it was full of people who were out shopping. on a summer day, maybe buying clothes, maybe buying some food. over 20 shoppers were killed at this shopping center and over 56 people were wounded. this shopping center, by the way, was in the central part of ukraine. if you look at the map, this is not anywhere near the war zone. more up in this area in the middle part of ukraine. so bombings of shopping centers, apartments, schools, hospitals. it's really hard to imagine, but it's mapping. -- but it's happening. we can help ukraine fight back. the best way is to provide them with more weapons, like the high gnars they need. we have hundreds in our stocks, by the way. it is more critical than every that the united states and

others support ukraine to try to turn the tide. only that will get russia to the bargaining table. meanwhile, we must continue to expose the brutality. much of the media attention has gone away while lives continue to be lost and cities continue to be bombarded. we need to keep letting people know about these atrocities. that's why i'm here on the floor of the senate for the 18th consecutive week to talk about what's happening to the people of ukraine, what's happening in the past week and why they deserve and need our help. ukrainians are fighting because they know what it's like to live under the thumb of totalitarianism. they've been subject to that through their history. more recently they broke away from that and towards democracy. it is important to know that ukraine is not asking us to fight this war for them. they just want us to help them, along with our allies, to be able to have the tools to protect themselves.

they're asking us for increased lethal military assistance to help defend themselves. and they are asking all of us to abide by the commitments we have made. in 1994, after the berlin wall came down, ukraine signed what's called the budapest memorandum, a treaty where ukraine agreed to give up all of its nuclear weapons and they had a lot of them, in exchange for security guarantees from russia, the united states of america, and the united kingdom. guarantees that we would all respect the independence and sovereignty of ukraine and refrain from the threat or use of force against ukraine. that was in 1994. so much for russia's commitment. i've seen the spirit and perseverance of the ukrainians firsthand when i have visited the country. i have been there seven, eight, nine times. i was there right after the revolution of dignity in 2014 where ukrainians decided to turn

away from a russian-backed and corrupt government and stand with us and europe to pursue a hopeful future of freedom and democracy. now it's time for us and our allies to stand with them. the world must know that freedom-loving countries around the globe have ukraine's back and we will be there until the bitter end. president putin must know that we will not back down, as he orders the ruthless slaughter of more innocents. at the beginning of my speech, i talked about this 4-year-old girl. liza's death occurred because of these rocket attacks. at her funeral, orthodox priest said this, and i quote, we know that evil cannot win. we know that evil cannot win.

and maybe that's the bottom line here today. this is a struggle between freedom and democracy and the right of self-determination on the one hand and evil on the other hand. evil of conquest, the evil of authoritarianism, the evil of tyranny. now is not the time to be tentative or equivocal. at this critical juncture, we need to work with our allies to provide ukraine what they need to defeat evil. to protect their homeland and to defend democracy. thank you, and i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that hat a time to be determined by the majority with consultation request the republican leader in the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, calendar 922, that there be ten minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the senate proceed to vote, with no intervening action or debate on the nomination, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in

order and that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. further, that calendar number 1051 be considered under the same agreement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar to consider calendar number treaty document 115-3, that the treaty be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolution of advise and consent to resolution, that any committee conditions, declarations, or reservations be agreed toss applicable, that way statements be printed in the record aces if ready. further, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that the senate resume legislative action. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: treaty doc 115-3,

on fisheries between the governments of certain pacific island states and the government of the united states of america. mr. schumer: i ask for a division vote on the resolution of advice and consent to ratification. the presiding officer: a division vote has been requested. all those in favor say aye. all those in favor stand and be counted. all those opposed stand and be counted. the presiding officer: on this division vote, two-thirds of the senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution for advise and consent to the resolution is agreed to.

mr. schumer: mr. president, i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until july 20. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved for date. the time for the leaders be approved and morning business be closed. upon the conclusion of morning business the senate proceed to executive session for the williams nomination. further that the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session ripen at 11:30 a.m. and that if cloture is invoked on the williams nomination all postcloture time expire at 2:30 p.m. if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: for the information

of the senate, there will be one roll call vote at 11:30, two roll call votes at 2:30 and additional roll call votes later in the day. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned --. mr. schumer: following the remarks of senator clob chair. the presiding officer: without objection -- following the remarks of senator klobuchar. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today, as i will many times, to address my colleagues on the topic of the competition policy, especially in our digital market, where we have a situation where a few big-tech

titans have grown into the largest corporations our country has ever seen. just today there is new reporting that shows that google and amazon have used their gatekeeper power to eliminate their competition for years. i don't think we're surprised by this, but this is new information that i think it's important as we learn new things all the time that my colleague know. according to a 2014 memo first obtained by the house judiciary committee, a google executive described -- this is what the memo says, quote, grave concerns, end quote, about a new service from a rival, quote, competing with their core search experience. the documents also include an e-mail from 2009 in which amazon executives discussed ways to stop a company -- that would be

diapers.com -- a company it later bought from advertising on their own platform. this gets to the core of what we're talking about here and why we must take action. this e-mail that was made public today reads, we are under no obligation to allow them to advertise on our site. i'd argue we should block them from buying product ads immediately or at minimum price those ads so they truly reflect the opportunity cost. what does that mean? well, amazon could charge their be rival whatever they wanted for advertisement and try and keep consumers in the dark about lower prices. that is only two from the dozens of documents newly released today by the house judiciary committee. so i come to the floor today because the evidence is clear and continues to mount. these dominant tech platforms

have abused their power for years, and now we are at a crossroads. will america continue to be a place where entrepreneurs lead our economy forward or will we become a country where a handful of monopists get to dictate who gets a chance to succeed? remember when they all started, whether they were in garages or whatever, they started with this idea they are platforms for sharing information. i don't think anyone could see they would also own things on the platform and then preface those things over other competitors. that is what is going on now, and this is where consumers go to make their decisions about what they're going to buy. and when you have situations where google has 90% of the search market, that is a monopoly, clear as can be. the decisions we make and the

actions we take today will set the trajectory for the american innovation for ingenuity and prosperity for the next generation. i say we must meet the moment. as a member of the senate judiciary committee, i've had the opportunity to serve as chair of the committee subcommittee on competition, policy, antitrust and consumer rights. from my vantage point, i can tell you it has become painfully obvious, as many of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, have seen that we have a serious competition problem throughout our economy, especially in big tech but not only in big tech. this issue impacts all americans every single day. why are there only twodom national smartphone --dom smartphone --dom --dom national smartphone systems? why does amazon keep raising prices small businesses and

consumers pay? the answer is simple. they're monopolies. they are the big guys on the block and there is a lack of competition. despite the volume of evidence that supports taking action, congress has yet to pass a single bill on online platform competition since the dawn of the internet. that's right, at the beginning we were told we don't want to squelch these new products and the competition. that made sense back then, but it doesn't make sense now. so this evening i'm going to talk about the problems consumers and small businesses are experiencing in the online marketplace and the cost of inaction. it's really easy around this place not to act, to say things are too hard to deal with, whether it's climate change, whether it's immigration reform, whether it's tech policy from competition to privacy. but at some point you've got to stop blaming other people and do

something about it. i'm going to review how other countries are attacking this problem and actually taking it on, and i'll discuss the many examples throughout history when congress and enforcers have stepped up to confront monopoly power. this has long been a problem in our country. you go way back to the founding fathers. so many people actually came to america because they wanted to be entrepreneurs. they didn't want to have to buy all their tea from the east indie tea company. you think about the senators of the past taking on monopolies, whether it's the railroad trust, whether it is the sugar trust, they took on monopolies. there's old cartoons in this very chamber or old senate chamber showing these big, bloated monopoly trusts looking down on the senators because they controlled them. we don't want that to happen in our modern day, because we know

many times in the past the senate did stand up and did something. that's a case i'm going to make today for why my bipartisan bill with senator grassley, the american innovation and choice online act, is necessary to level the playing field in our digital economy. first let me say a word about what we're up against because that's what everyone sees. i'm trying to measure my audience today on c-span versus the what we believe is well around $100 million that the big tech companies have purchased for ads, especially in states where senators are up for reelection, where they have purchased ads all over the country. but people do listen. there are a few people here right now. and if i give this speech in different ways a number of times, i can win. so let's talk about what we're up against. when i talk about the dominant

digital platforms, i'm talking about some of the most powerful companies in the world with armies of lobbyists and lawyers, thousands and thousands of lawyers and be lobbyists. i have two, they're sitting right here in the chamber. we do have kind of a david and goliath situation. but the lawyers for tech, they are everywhere, in every corner in this town, at every cocktail party and all over this building. i tell my colleagues that they don't even know sometimes when someone is trying to influence them because they may think they're just talking to a friend or someone who worked on their campaign a while ago. but once they start talking about antitrust and big tech, i tell them they should ask the person if they're being paid by a tech company or if they are on a board of a tech company or if they have some affiliation with one of the big tech companies. because time and time again they have been surprised to find the answer is yes. but these big tech companies aren't just lobbying my colleagues.

they are also lobbying the american people with astro turf campaigning and other dishonest p.r. tactics. at the same time that i've been working with my colleagues in good faith on commonsense solutions to online competition problems, these companies have been telling anyone who will listen that acting to protect competition in our digital markets will sometimes or somehow cede our national security or it will outlaw amazon prime, claims that were disputed by the department of justice and amazon's own lobbyists in the press. that's just two examples. we deal with this all the time. they will say anything and everything, and senator grassley and i came down here together to the senate floor to refute this a few months ago. and then of course there's the money. i think this is actually the best evidence on just how big and dominant and bullying these companies are, running ads in states where people are in tough

races. i think they get the message. they're showing they're out there. they're showing they are going to be able to put whatever money it takes into ads to stop this bill. how obvious can it be? message received. we're out here and we can hurt you. and, by the way, they wouldn't be spending millions and millions of dollars to stop us if we didn't have momentum. let me give you some numbers. in 2021, big tech company spent more than $70 million combined lobbying congress. that doesn't include these ads i'm talking about. in the first quarter of this year, facebook, meta, amazon, alphabet, which is google, and apple spent more than $16 million lobbying congress. that's in one quarter, and you see my two lawyers on the other side. in just one recent week in may, one industry group -- the computer and communications industry association -- spent $22 million on tv ads against this bill.

that's $22 million against one bill in one week. so when you see those tv ads which they love running in washington so the members will see them, remember that number -- $22 million -- and think two lawyers. that's what we are up against. but it doesn't surprise me. i'm not trying to win a popularity contest with the tech companies. that ship has sailed. i'm simply trying to do the right thing. since i'm a senator and not a tech-backed industry group, i don't get to spread my message with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. i don't have paid actors, but big-tech lobbyists can't stop me from standing here today on the floor of the senate and tell you the truth. and the truth is these companies will stop at nothing to protect their profits even if it means stifling the innovation that has made our economy seconds to none. american prosperity was of course built on a foundation of open markets and fair competition. it is competition between

companies that gives consumers lower prices, drives manufacturers to constantly innovate and improve products and forces companies to pay fair wages to compete for workers. competition provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to start and grow new businesses , fueling future economic growth. but if you look at our markets today, we see big cracks in that free market foundation. we see bigger businesses and fewer competitors and more dominant companies using their market power to suppress their rivals and line their own pockets. an example, more than two-thirds of u.s. industries have become more concentrated between -- and this is the last figures we had -- 1997 and 2012, because our government doesn't really collect these figures because someone stopped them from doing it. the white house highlighted this problem a year ago in its executive order on competition, pointing out over 75% of our

industries ranging from agriculture to banking to health care, a smaller number of large companies now control more of the business than they did 20 years ago. this is raising prices joar all for americans. the lack of -- overall for americans. the lack of competition is estimated to cost the median american household $5,000 a year. probably lem is most obvious in the tech industries, because that is a relatively new area, compared to some of our more embedded industries, and while over time we did things with pharma, we've done things in other areas, there, as i noted, is no law passed since the advent of the internet involving tech competition. tech has given us some great products. i'm wearing one, a fit bit. i use google maps, order from amazon and other places, carry an iphone. over the last several decades, companies like google, apple,

microsoft have created many great innovations. we went from the wall street, gordon gecko days with the brick that weighed 13 pounds to cell phones the size of a watch. while once scrappy start-ups innovating to survive, these start-ups are the largest the world has ever known. you get that big, you have responsibilities. you have to be accountable. you aren't just out there as a brand-new start-up doing whatever you want. but that is the mentality. they are still introducing new products. that's great. thy they are also gatekeepers. and they use that power as gatekeepers to stifle competition and innovation by their competitors and the businesses that have no choice but to use their services. so that's the problem. if you want to sell something, big time, you better get on the app store. when you get on the app store, depending on the size of your company as you get bigger, let's

say you're spotify, you have to pay 30% of revenue you make on that app store to apple for the pleasure of competing with their own product, apple music. so to my colleagues, i say this, yes, you can love the products, you can love the ceo's themselves, you can love the companies, but you also have to love competition and love and take seriously the unique role we are supposed to play as senators and as members of congress to ensure there's an even playing field. you go back to the godfather d to always watch out for the standing armies of monopolies. we knew from the beginnings of this country we would have to step in time and again to make sure that we rejuvenate capitalism. that's what this is about. throughout history, whether in telecom in the 1990 with the breakup of at&t, which made the

company, according to one of their former presidents, stronger, or by passing the hart-scott-radino act in the 1970's, to stopping sweetheart merger settlements, congress brought down prices over time by ensuring there's competition. it's a uniquely american way to do things. i'm grateful for our friends in the house, chairman cicilliney and ranking member ken buck, who led bipartisan hearings on big tech and its anticompetitive conduct. it gave us a whole treasure-trove of information. they conducted an 18-month investigation in the house judiciary committee, 18 months, focused on how the largest and most dominant digital platforms harm small businesses, quash innovation, raise prices and reduce quality. this is what bothers me when some of our colleagues say we don't know enough. seriously? 18 months of an investigation. anyone in this room, it's public, can go look at it.

1,287,997 documents and communications. this is on the record. testimony from 38 witnesses. a hearing record that spans more than 1800 pages. 338 submissions from 60 antitrut experts from across the political spectrum. and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigated platforms, and other individuals totaling thousands of hours. that doesn't even include what we've done in the u.s. senate judiciary committee. so please spare me hearing the we have not learned enough about this. the report is 450 pages. let me read some experts that capture -- some excerpts that capture the harm we've seen to consumers and small businesses as a result of the failure to update competition policy. to put -- this is from the

record. to put it simply, companies that once were scrappy underdog start-ups that challenge the status quo have become the kind of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tie coons. those these -- tycoons. the dominance of amazon, apple, facebook, google has come at a price. these firms typically run the marketplace, in each of their areas. you all know that. everyone in this room knows that, because 90% of the people when doing a search engine, they go to one that is google. you know the dominance of amazon. you all know the dominance of these companies, these firms are in a position that enable them to write one set of rules for others while they play by another or to engage in a form of their open private, quasi-regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. the totality of the evidence produced during this investigation, this is from the house, demonstrates a pressing

need for legislative action and reform. these firms have too much power, and that must be reined in and subject to appropriate oversight and enforcement. our economy and democracy are at stake. the subcommittee identified numerous instances in which dominant platforms engage in preferential or discriminatory treatment. in some cases, the dominant platform privileged its own products or services. in another, a dominant platform gave preferential treatment to one business partner over the other. because the dominant platform was in most instances, and this is what is key, the only viable path to market, it's discriminatory treatment had the effect of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. that's us. we're supposed to pick the winners and the losers in the marketplace and decide what's the best product based on what's supposed to be the least priced or the highest quality. now they have inserted themselves while at the same time in many instances placing

their own products above others. not because they're less money. not because they're better. but because they're theirs. google, for example, engaged in self-preferencing, i'm back to the report, by systematically ranking its own content above third party content, even when inferior or less relevant for users. web pub rischers of content that google demoted several economic losses and had no way of competing on the merits. over of the course -- over the course of the investigation, numerous third parties told the house subcommittee self-preferencing and discriminatory treatment by the dominant platforms forced businesses to divert resources from developing new products and towards paying a dominant platform for advertisements or other ancillary services. they added some of the harmful business practices of the platforms discouraged investors from supporting their business

and made it challenging to free throw and -- grow and sustain a business even with highly popular products. without the opportunity to compete fairly, businesses and entrepreneurs are dissuaded from investing and over the long term innovation suffers. by virtue of functions as only viable path to the market, and that's what they are in so many instances, dominant platforms enjoy superior bargaining power over the third parties that depend on their platform to access users and the market. their bargaining leverage is a form of market power in which the dominant platforms routinely used to protect and expand their dominance. since 1998, amazon, apple, facebook and google collectively have purchased more than 500 companies. the antitrust agencies did not block a single acquisition. they did not block a single acquisition. as i look back, i remember in

bright lights that e-mail discovered during the house hearing and which mark zuckerberg wrote, i'd rather buy than compete. i'd rather buy than compete. to me, that preaches is exhibit -- that pretty much is exhibit a. the house report has far more information than i could share in a single speech, but i will share it over the next few months. overall, the house report found if there was true exe competition we'd have a manufacture dynamic and innovative tech center, with more small and medium-sized businesses. maybe if facebook hadn't bought them, an independent instagram, an independent what's app, because meta owns them, could have developed the bells, whistles, privacy controls. we'll never know. why? because they bought them. if you have big monopolies that buy up all that potential innovation, that buy up smaller

companies, you lose the ability to get at some of the major challenges we see in our country. i believe in the market. i was in the private sector over a decade. i believe in capitalism. but if you don't have an even playing field for competition, you've got a problem. over time, if left unchecked, big companies dominate markets, exclude their rivals and buy out their competitors. as one of the witnesses at a hearing that i chaired with the ranking member lee said before our subcommittee on competition policy, alex harman, a public citizen put it, when companies face less competition, either because of consolidation or from forces that make competitive threats less likely, they invest less in research and development. they in turn are less likely to produce new innovations. all too of the on companies across the economic spectrum that depend on gatekeeping firms to reach the marketplace, slash jobs and cut back on developing

new products. as one founder put it, it feels like we are treading water with cement blocks around our feet. this is what's been going on in our country. it describes the problems we're facing from these digital gatekeepers. we've also heard from many other companies -- nonprofits, trade associations, about what has been happening to them as a consequence of the monopoly power wielded by the largest platforms. consumer reports says multiple visions and -- investigations and studies have found that the largest platforms have too much power, resulting in harm to consumers, businesses and the economy. a group of 60 small and medium-sized businesses wrote a letter, saying gaining access to the dominant platforms has increasingly become a take it or leave it process, replete with anticompetitive demands. it doesn't serve american consumers if small or medium

sized businesses when they tilt the competitive scales. in yarn, the national association of wholesaler distributors whoat unchecked amazon's dominance threatens to cripple the highly competitive b2b system in the united states. the american lodging and hotel association wrote dominant companies give their own paid advertising services preferential treatment and placement within their platforms to ensure that despite what the consumer is searching for, they will likely be steered down a booking path that benefits the search provider. not that benefits you, but benefits one of the biggest companies the world has ever known. if from a group of 40 small and medium-sized businesses in january, due to their dweat keeper status -- gatekeeper status, dominant technology companies can use man inlative

design tactics to steer away and restrict the ability of competitors to operate on the platform, use nonpublic data to benefit the company's own services or products, and i could go on. what do we have here? google has 90% market share in search engines. apple controls 100% of app distribution for iphones. and google controls the other app distribution. they are what we call a duopoly. three out of every four social media users, and there are four billion, are active facebook users. amazon is expected to seize half of the entire e-commerce retail market this year. that's what's happening. what are we doing? let me repeat. we have done nothing. we have done nothing. we've had hearings, we've thrown popcorn at ceo's, but haven't passed one bill out of the united states congress to do anything about this competitive situation. what are other countries doing? well, other countries are now leaving fuss in the dust.

they -- leaving us in the dust. they look to our leadership, because america's always known as a country of entrepreneurs and that encourages competition. now? look what's happening. canada introduced legislation in april to make the dominant digital platforms fairly compensate news publishers for their content, following australia's lead, which took similar action about a year earlier. and europe is moving forward with its digital markets act, dma, a broad and sweeping piece of legislation, that will place many new obligations on digital gatekeepers. the legislation puts rules of the road in place for how the digital gatekeepers determine search rankings, set defaults, process and use personal data, negotiate with bus users, inter-- with business operators and demonstrate the efficiency of the digital programs. and the effectiveness of them.

it requires gatekeepers to notify about collection of data. if that sounds more intense than the bill senator grassley and i put together, it is more intense. the point is it's gone through the european parliament. in the european union, we're seeing the effects of effort to rein in big tech. amazon made a settlement offer to the european commission in attempt to resolve an antitrust case. the investigations were launched in 2019 and 2020 and involved three key issues that implement the conduct in the united states too. first the europeans investigated when amazon used non-private data. so though give data to detain on the platform. what they found out was that amazon was using the nonpublic

data from sellers to inform its own targets for new product developments. that's what monopolies do. the sellers had no choice but to sell on thate ma does on platform. then amazon says we're going to see what products are good. then we're going to copy that product either directly as they did he with a four-person luggage carrier firm where they ripped off every detail of the product based on reporting from "the wall street journal." we know now know that. or they just kind of know the product is doing well, so they do one just like it and put at the top of the search engine. amazon has sworn under oath that it does not do that. well, now let's look at what's happening in europe. amazon also tightly controls who wins the coveted buy box often awarding that preferred placement to itself. third, amazon requires sellers who want to be prime to use

amazon's logistics services even if there could be a better alternative. we're not getting rid of prime. we're just saying, you got to open the door so there could be alternatives. amazon's settlement offer is filled with elements from my bill. that's what's so interesting, because around this place or if you watch the tv ad, you think the world is going to end if we did a modicum of things while investigations are going on. of course we know that various investigations in the justice department and around the country, at the f.t.c. we're just going to sit there and let this continue until every appeal is made? but here's what's so interesting. in europe under the offer that amazon just made in europe, amazon will stop using seller data to decide what private label products to launch, make it easier for third parties to win the buy box, and allow sellers to participate in the prime program without using fulfillment by amazon services to manage logistics like

warehousing and shipping. my bill with senator grassley -- and what was called the oceans 11 of cosponsors because everyone has such different political beliefs but we come together in support of capitalism for this bill -- this bill that we have here, that's what it would do. it would require amazon to do the same things that i just mentioned that they put forward in their settlement offer in europe. yet amazon has claimed in its multimillion-dollar ad campaign that this will break prime in the united states. the hypocrisy is simply stunning. why should consumers in europe and small businesses in europe have the benefit of the offer they're giving them and then we in the united states, we, who host their company, try to simply put the same requirements into law and then we are told, oh, this is outrageous, when they're offering the exact same thing in other countries? the british have been working on these issues, too. particularly when this comes to

app stores. i want to thank senator blumenthal and blackburn for their leadership in this area. the competition in markets authority in the united kingdom just last month issued a final report on the app star ecosystem reaching the following conclusions. this is in the united kingdom with of course a government that's different than the one we have here. apple -- this is from the britts. apple and google have each captured such a large proportion and volume of consumers in this the u.k. that their ecosystems are, for practical purpose, indispensable to online businesses. i think that's pretty fair to say what's going on here. let meet continue with the brits. apple and google act as gatekeepers to most u.k. consumers with mobile devices and as a result can set the rules. the evidence demonstrates that in the areas where apple and google generate the vast majority of their revenues from

their mobile ecosystems, there is room for greater and more effective price competition. in the case of apple's mobile devices, both firms' app stores and google's search services, the evidence suggests that the prices charged are above a competitive rate. consumers would get a better deal if apple and google faced more robust competition. the report continues, weak competition within and between apple's and google's ecosystems is harming consumers and will do so to a greater degree absent any intervention. most importantly we are concerned that consumers will miss out on innovative new features and products or services that are held become or discouraged by the power that apple and google wield. that's one report. if we continue to fail to take action in this country, we will lose our leadership position

when it comes to antitrust on the global stage. that actually is not that great of a thing because then we're letting other countries determine what's going to happen for the future of competition. that is a huge risk for our country. it is time to take action just as congress has done before when facing significant evidence of market failures and massive consolidation. so when big tech companies talk about this bill or really any serious antitrust effort, they try to make it sound like we're pushing for some kind of unprecedented action. and as i just discussed, that's not true because we know they're getting all kinds of pushback in other countries and actually are making settlement offers that are exactly akin to some of the things we have in the bill. but it also isn't true in the history of our own country. i think everyone, while people don't think they have something in their background to do with monopolies or they are da dads

or their moms or grand parents had nothing to do, everyone has got something about competitive policy that affected their lives in the past or affected their relatives. for me, i think of the james j. hillhouse in st. paul. we never lived there. i'll get to that in a moment. calling it a house is actually an understatement. the 36,000 square foot mansion has fire places and a 1 should-foot reception hall. it was constructed in 1890 which is the same year that congress actually finally did something about competition by passing the sherman act. the man who built this house, james j. hill, was a railroad magnate whose railroad ran from st. paul to seattle. he consolidated multiple railroads across the country, using a legal concept called a trust. that's why we have antitrust. in which the stockholders of multiple competitors transferred their shares toss a single set of trustees. there were all kinds of trusts, as i mentioned -- rail trustser

oil trusts. standard oil trust controlled more than 90% of the country's refining capacity. the sugar trust controlled 90% of refined slurring. we had trusts in everything from sewer pipes to bread. when i was growing up, my mom would like to take me to see the christmas lights by that house, and other big houses. and i remembered at some of the houses, unlike this one, there were actually people in it and kind of ducking down. she loved to show me that on my way home from pee anno lesson. to build that house, hill needed workers. hill needed the monopoly railroads that gave him the money to build this humongous mansion and he needed cheap labor. that's where my family comes in. that's where the klobuchars fit in. my great-grandpa and my grandpa were both miners in northern minnesota and they did the would, that supported the

monopoly lifts. -- monopolists. in the end, that's how he built his house. our nation, as i noted, has a very rich, and difficult history of dealing with monopolies. but every single time whether it was the east indian tea company throwing that d.e.a. into the harbor -- yes, it was about taxation without representation, but it was also about a monopoly company. every single time we have found a way to push back, whether it was farmers in the granger movement with our pitch forks taking on the cost of rail, whether as if in chicago, the pullman strike, strike by workers against monopolies in the beef industry, fine finally you in 1901, teddy roosevelt rode his horse right into the white house. he finally did something about it. he used the first passed antitrust law, the sherman act and was able to take on the

trust. since then you've seen this rejuvenation over time. sometimes there is a lull and then things get so bad -- hike what happened with at&t, that between democratic and republican administrations, people come in and do something about it. i know a little bit about this because my first job out of law school was representing mci at a law firm. that's when they were fighting to get into the monopoly market. when at&t was broken up, what happened? long-distance rates went way down and we finally got a cell phone industry because one company wasn't controlling everything because they did not have at that time, after a while they were cool at first, then they didn't have any kind of incentive to innovate. then they finally did. that just gets us to the present where we have been hanging out and waiting and doing nothing for now decades and decades since the advent of the internet. it is time to act. hence our legislation. january 12 is 1983 is considered

the official birthday of the internet, so it's been 40 years since then and we still have not passed, as i noted, competition legislation. that's why our group of senators have come together and that includes dick durbin, lindsey graham, richard blumenthal, cory booker,cynthia lummis, mayscy hirono, steve daines, sheldon whitehouse, several more that are supporting the bill, and said enough is enough. our bill creates rules of the road for the platforms. that means first of all that they can't abuse their gatekeeper power by favoring their own prosecuted -- products or services and disadvantaging rivals. in other words, as the examples i've used, amazon won't be able to misuse small-business data in order to be aable to copy their products and compete against them. apple won't be able to block other services from inter-operating with their

platform. and google won't be able to bias their results. that's when our bill does. amazon should rate products based on price and quality, not based on their own profit margins. the world's largest and most powerful platform shouldn't be allowed to copy a small business' private data. i use the example of luggage carrier. there are many, many more. another challenge to cracking down on antitrust violations is how difficult and time-consuming it can be to try these cases in court. currently the government has to spend millions on economic experts and years in the courts and even after all that, the likelihood of victory because of very conservative supreme court cases in the last few decades is small. this bill streamlines things in this area, it doesn't break up the companies. some people would like to do that. that's not what this bill does. it doesn't stop mergers. i think we should put in

stronger merger guidelines. this bill simply gives some rules of the road for these companies to be fairer going forward while we figure out the other things that need to be figured out. so support for this bill. "boston globe," october 2021 said, if the largest middle class forms can't be trusted to enforce even their own anti-company competitive policies, then washington has little choice but to act. they noted that the bill i have with senator grassley has finally a chance for congress to turn concern over big tech's way into action. seattle times march 2022 wrote that, as antitrust efforts ramp up and congress, big tech is fighting back unleaker on army of lobbyists, enlisting groups to apply pressure and engaging in fearmongering to avoid critical regulation. let me tell you a lot of the our senators have heard that

fearmongering. lawmakers must support legislation that reins in the tech companies and protects consumers and small businesses. but no matter what the tech companies say, antitrust legislation will not slay these giants or kill ink knowvation. that is not its goal. what it will do is limit big tech's ability to run roughshod over companies and consumers. enough, democrats and republicans agree. but time is is running out. congress needs to act much "the washington post" editorial in april of 2022 -- called our bill a sound bill and pressed for movement on the legislation including by writing, antitrust needs revisions that prevent dominant companies from building barriers to a marketplace where those customers will have both choice and protection. legislatures should view the bills before congress as an opportunity to achieve this aim at last. the bill also has support from agency experts that have

enforced antitrust laws and worked to protect competition in the u.s. market. the department of justice has endorsed the bill and i note this is after the department of justice under the previous administration, under the trump administration, with bill barr as the attorney general. they actually started the initial lawsuit, the major, major lawsuit against google. and the ftc under the trump administration started the lawsuit against facebook. they filed major lawsuits that are to be continued by this administration. the department of justice wrote this. the department views the rise of dominant platforms as presenting a threat to open markets and excess competition with risks to consumers, global competitiveness and our democracy. such platforms can exercise

outsized market power in our modern economy vesting the power to pick winners and losers and a small number of corporations contravenes the foundations of our capital system and given the increase and importance of these markets the power of such platforms is likely to continue to grow unless checked. this puts at risk the nation's economic prosperity ultimately threatening the economic liberty that undergirds our democracy. the department of justice continued if enacted we believe this legislation has the potential to have a positive effect on die new -- dynanism ad digital markets going forward. entrepreneurs having the ability to access markets that impede innovation, competition, resiliency and widespread prosperity. and commerce secretary raimondo testified before our senate commerce committee -- i was there -- saying i applaud your

efforts and clearly agree that we need to improve competition which increases innovation. she said last month the doj released a views letter on behalf of the administration in support of the american innovation and choice online act and the commerce department and i support and concur with the aim of that legislation. and it's not just officials currently in these roles that support this bill. roger alford in the antitrust division from 2017 to 2019 wrote to us saying the bills provide hope that congress will restore competition to digital marketplaces. and while people may have seen the disingenuous ads on tv against the bill i think it is worth reading portions of the letters that we have received. l consumer federation of america, to maintain a healthy economy, it turns out we need sensible regulation and antitrust enforcement. the american innovation and choice online act addresses the

key issues. in a sector of the digital economy that has not been addressed by competition policy and antitrust law. it targets big data platforms which can abuse the power market as gatekeepers and vertically integrated firms to block competition. antitrust legal scholars wrote -- i'll put this in the record -- more than 60 small and medium size business as i wrote, yelp, duck duck go, and other businesses wrote s. 2992 will help restore competition in the digital marketplace. small business rising wrote the legislation is a critical solution to the outsized power of tech giants. as president of hobby works, american hobby shop said recently all that any small business asks for is a somewhat level playing field and a somewhat fair environment in which to compete.

i will end with this -- monopoly power, consumer choice, reduced innovation, these aren't topics that come up for the first time when we marked up and passed this i will about. i just read to you the thousands and thousands of pieces of documents and testimony from the house for 18 months that our colleagues, representative sister -- cicillini put together. we have had hearing after hearing in the u.s. senate. it's time to stop throwing the popcorn at the ceo's and actually do something. we got this bill through the judiciary committee with a 16-6 vote just six months ago. now it is time to bring this bill to a vote on the floor. we have monopoly problems. you can still like the products. you can like the companies if you want. okay. but at some point they have

gotten so big that you have to put some rules of the road in place to ensure that we can have the next google or we can have another competitor to google or we can have a true competitor to amazon or we can find finally social media flassments -- platforms that protect our data and democracy. this isn't going to happen if you let four big platforms control the day. as long as they do, which looks like it is for the foreseeable future, at least let's protect capitalism bill putting some rules of the road in place. with that, mr. president, thank you for listening, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

instant about media, was ready. traffic soared and we never slowed down. schools and businesses went

virtually and we powered a new reality because at mediacom, we are built to keep you ahead. supporting c-span as a public service along with of these other television providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. o >> transportation secretary gives congress an update on the implementation of the infrastructure and investment of law. at the $1.2 trillion package that was signed by president biden last year includes money for roads, rails and bridges. he took questions from members of the house transportation committee.