Floor Statements

Mr. President, on another matter, the Judiciary Committee report, this morning Republicans on the Judiciary Committee released the transcripts of interviews conducted as part of its investigation into Russian meddling. It was a perfunctory move, apparently intended to signal the end of the Judiciary Committee's on-again, off-again, halting investigation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans are rushing to declare their investigation complete when they have barely scratched the surface. After more than a year of intermittent effort, Senate Republicans have interviewed only 12 witnesses in total. Today they are releasing the transcripts of the testimony of just five witnesses who were interviewed about the notorious June 2016 Trump Tower meeting. One of the witnesses, an infamous, Kremlin-connected lawyer, was allowed to provide only written answers--no followup questions, no probing. Astoundingly, our Republican friends decided not to even interview two of the other key participants in that meeting--Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort.

To call the Senate Judiciary Committee's Trump-Russia investigation halfhearted is too generous. It has been no different from the effort taken by Representative Nunes. It is designed to let the President and his lawyers interfere with the Mueller probe and to get a peek at any potential evidence.

That is why the Democrats on the committee, led by Senator Feinstein, have today released a document detailing the open threats of the committee's investigation--the interviews not conducted, the leads not followed. The information Judiciary Committee Democrats provided today shows one thing: Committee Democrats have made crystal clear that committee Republicans are prematurely saying ``pencils down.'' There is much left to investigate, many witnesses still to be heard, and many facts left to follow.

The message of Senate Republicans on this investigation is ``Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.'' The American people will not be fooled. They know the difference between a genuine search for truth and a whitewash.

I remain hopeful that Senators Burr and Warner are running down every lead and every thread, but there is no doubt that the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation will be the next target of the President's talking heads on FOX News.

Madam President, as the minority, we typically cannot move legislation on the floor without the consent of the majority leader. But under the rules governing congressional review, any group of 30 Senators can petition to discharge a CRA--a Congressional Review Act--from the committee and bring it to the floor subject to a majority vote. That is what Senator Markey has just done with the CRA on net neutrality, and the vote that just concluded means the full Senate will now consider it, because I believe there were 52 votes in favor.

For the first time in this Congress, the majority will be called to vote on an issue that I suspect they would rather avoid.

Net neutrality is a complex issue, but an incredibly consequential one. At stake is the future of the internet, which until this point in our history, has remained free and open, accessible and affordable to most Americans. That fundamental equality of access is what has made the internet so dynamic--a catalyst for innovation, a tool for learning, a means of instant and worldwide communication.

To ensure the internet stayed that way, the Obama-era FCC instituted net neutrality rules to prevent large internet service providers from segmenting the internet into fast and slow lanes, from selling faster service to folks who could pay and slower service to others--we didn't want that--and from charging customers more for their favorite sites, divvying up the internet into packages like cable TV.

Why was this so important? Because if large cable and internet companies were allowed to do this, the internet wouldn't operate on a level playing field. Big corporations and folks who could pay would enjoy the benefits of fast internet and speedy delivery to their customers while startups and small businesses, public schools, average folks, including communities of color and rural Americans, could well be disadvantaged. Net neutrality protected everyone and prevented large ISPs from discriminating against any customers.

That era--the era of a free and open internet--unfortunately will soon come to an end. In December, the Republican-led FCC voted to repeal the net neutrality rules, and on June 11 of this year, that repeal will go into effect. It may not be a cataclysm on day one, but sure as rain, if internet service providers are given the ability to start charging more for preferred service, they will find a way to do it.

So the Democratic position is very simple: Let's treat the internet like the public good that it is. We don't let water companies or phone companies discriminate against customers. We don't restrict access to interstate highways, saying: You can ride on the highway, and you can't. We shouldn't do that with the internet either. That is what the Democratic net neutrality CRA would ensure.

We appreciate that three Republicans joined on the motion to proceed to our resolution. We hope more will come with us.

Where do Republicans stand on this issue? Why haven't we heard much from them on this issue, when it is a typical issue that protects the middle class, working families, and average Americans from big special interests taking advantage of them?

I suspect our colleagues are kind of quiet on this issue because the arguments made by opponents of net neutrality aren't very convincing. Some opponents say that net neutrality is an unwarranted and burdensome regulation--something that hampers the internet. I would remind those critics that net neutrality has been on the books for several years and the internet is working just fine. Furthermore, the net neutrality rules were upheld by the courts as appropriate consumer protection.

Yet we will hear too many of my Republican friends say that we shouldn't restore net neutrality through this CRA because we need bipartisan legislation to deal with this issue. That argument is a duck. It is a dodge. It is a way for my Republican friends to delay.

Democrats are happy to do bipartisan legislation to enshrine net neutrality into law, but the legislation is going to take time. In the meantime, we must ensure consumers have a safety net right now, and this CRA is the quickest

and surest way of doing it. Plain and simple, if you are for net neutrality, you ought to be for Senator Markey's CRA.

This issue presents a stark contrast: Are you on the side of the large internet and cable companies or are you on the side of the average American family? That is what the vote on this legislation is all about.

I say to every American who cares about an open and free internet: Today is the day. Contact your Republican Senator. See who votes for net neutrality and who votes against, and let them know how you feel about the way they voted. This is our chance--our best chance--to make sure the internet stays accessible and affordable for all Americans.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the Judiciary Committee announced that it would be voting on a slate of judicial nominees including Andrew Oldham, a nominee for the Fifth Circuit, and Wendy Vitter, a nominee for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

We prize the quality of moderation in all our judges at the district level, the circuit level, and, of course, at the Supreme Court level. Mr. Oldham and Ms. Vitter unfortunately have expressed a number of sentiments that would put them on the political extreme, including troubling statements about women's healthcare rights.

Asked separately by my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, if they agreed with the decision in the landmark Supreme Court decision forbidding segregating schools in Brown v. Board of Education, both Mr. Oldham and Ms. Vitter demurred. Can you believe that? They would not say they supported Brown v. Board of Education, and this is who our colleagues are nominating to put on the bench? It shouldn't be a tough question. Segregation and the false paradigm of ``separate but equal'' was a national disgrace. It remains a stain on our history. It has been widely discredited from one end of America to the other. Yet the nominees for the Fifth Circuit and the Eastern District of Louisiana could not say they agreed with the idea that we as a Nation should have one school system for all races.

The Judiciary Committee will vote on Mr. Oldham and Ms. Vitter's nominations on Thursday, 64 years to the day since Brown v. Board was decided and segregated schools were deemed unconstitutional. In honor of this anniversary, the 64th anniversary of Brown v. Board, my Senate Republican colleagues aren't rolling out a new education policy or a new civil rights policy, they are voting to give these two individuals lifetime appointments to the bench.

When we say that sometimes our Republican colleagues and this President is divisive, it is actions like this that document that and make the fact that they are being divisive irrefutable. Our Nation became a better nation--more just, more free--when the Supreme Court said that no official, high or petty, could determine where an African American child could or could not go to school. If you can't agree with that decision, you don't deserve to be a Federal judge, and my colleagues should make a stand and roundly vote against these two nominees.

Madam President, first, I recently heard that my dear friend Harry Reid has just gotten out of an operation to treat pancreatic cancer. I have spoken to his family, and it seems that everything went very well with the operation. The doctors say pancreatic cancer is not a great thing, but given that the operation couldn't have gone much better, we are all praying for Harry's speedy recovery. Harry is a fighter literally and figuratively. I know he is going to approach his recovery with the same energy and tenacity and resolve that defined his public life. We all send our prayers to him. We also wish a speedy recovery to the First Lady, who underwent a medical procedure today as well.

Madam President, an area in which the President and I have mostly agreed is on trade with China. I have given him a pat on the back for his stance so far. I have praised the administration vocally and forcefully for its efforts in addressing China's intellectual property theft and extortion--its unwillingness to let our best products be sold in their country, in their huge market, unless we give them our family jewels, that of how we do things, of how we invent things.

The President was right, and so many of us breathed a sigh of relief when he started an investigation into China's theft of our intellectual property. The administration was right to threaten tariffs and investment restrictions to get China to the negotiating table. Its reaction to what happened with the recent telecom company ZTE shows that when you are tough with China, it really reacts.

China is rapacious about trade, particularly about intellectual property. To gain access to China's markets, American companies are forced by China's Government into deals in which they must turn over their most valuable job-creating intellectual property to Chinese competitors. China's state-backed companies try to steal intellectual property from American companies outright. It is wrong and is anathema to the American way.

Four-star Gen. Keith Alexander, Retired, has said that China's theft of intellectual property has been the ``greatest transfer of wealth in history.'' That just eats at me. It eats at me. That is American jobs; that is American wealth, American innovation, of which we are all so proud, being stolen--there is no other word--by China, and it hurts us.

There is one example that hits home to me. I was in Albany this morning. One of our biggest employers is GE, which makes steam turbines. GE employs thousands of people in good-paying jobs. It is one of the big manufacturing sites left in Schenectady. A few years back, it signed one of these 5149s. China wouldn't let it sell the turbines in China, and it is a huge market. So it signed one of these things to make them in China--a 5149 with a Chinese company that clearly the government's tentacles are in.

It is great for GE's CEO. I liked him, and he was my friend, but I so objected to what he did here. GE makes good profits on those sales because it gets an exclusive contract on the right to sell for a few years, but then China will have stolen the amazing GE technology that allows its turbines to be the best in the world, to spin fast without overheating, and those jobs are gone. That story can be repeated over and over and over again.

So I thought, good for President Trump for finally getting serious about this calamity. I noted that my views on China and how we deal with it economically are closer to President Trump's than to President Bush's or President Obama's, both of whom I thought were far too soft. He acknowledged that in a little note he sent to me because he saw it in one of the newspapers he reads. Yet, now, disappointingly--maybe not surprisingly--President Trump is backing off. Over the weekend, we saw two incredible examples of the President doing a 180 on China.

First, Axios reported that the President is on the verge of a deal that would have China accelerate its purchases of U.S. goods, in the name of reducing our trade deficit with China, in exchange for our dropping the 301 tariffs that have been proposed to stop China from stealing our intellectual property specifically.

Secondly and amazingly enough, when he finally took some strong action against China--his Commerce Department--the President backed off. He tweeted that he and President Xi are working together to give the massive Chinese phone company ZTE a way to get back into business fast because there had been ``too many jobs in China lost.'' What about jobs in America, Mr. President? What about the millions of jobs that are lost because of what China has done?

The President was referring to the fact that ZTE had accepted a fine for selling its products in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran and North Korea and could be further restricted by a pending FCC proposal to ban U.S. telecom companies that receive Federal funds from purchasing mobile equipment or services from companies like ZTE. Why? Because ZTE poses a national security threat to U.S. communication networks. This President, who prides himself on keeping us secure, is going to let ZTE continue to do this despite what the experts say?

Why on Earth would President Trump promise to help a Chinese telecom company that has flouted U.S. sanctions and whose trade practices are a risk to our national security? The thing that will move China most is taking tough action against actors like ZTE, but even before it is implemented the President backs off. Why on Earth

would the President retreat from cracking down on intellectual property theft--the thing China fears most, the thing that has hurt us the most and will hurt us even more in the future--losing millions, if not tens of millions, of American jobs in exchange for a few purchases of U.S. goods in the short term? That is a bad, lopsided deal if there ever was one. It would be like trading away your star player for the last-round draft pick. If President Trump makes that deal, President Xi of China will have made a fool of the President and will have shown that he does not know how to cut a deal.

President Trump bemoans ``too many jobs in China lost.'' What about American jobs? What about job losses associated with the theft of intellectual property from China and ZTE, in particular? What happened to ``America First''? Being soft on trade puts China first. What happened to ``Make America Great Again''? That is how the President campaigned. That is, in good part, how he got elected, but, once again, the President talks the talk but refuses--is unable, is afraid--to walk the walk, and, once again, a foreign leader could well be playing our President for a chump.

President Trump's latest about-face on trade policy will not make America great again; it will make China great again. The next generation of electric vehicles, telecom hardware, advanced aviation technology, and renewable energy should be made in America, not China. It will not happen if we allow China to continue to extort and steal our intellectual property and know-how, if we allow China to sell goods here at will but not allow us to sell our best products over there. Walking away from the negotiating table with anything less than an enforceable and verifiable commitment to protect our intellectual property would be a catastrophic failure and again show that President Xi has clearly outplayed President Trump. I pray that doesn't happen because we care about jobs for America.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, later today the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Michael Brennan to the Seventh Circuit over the objections of one of his home-State Senators, Ms. Baldwin, who has not returned a blue slip on his nomination.

It is an abject breach of senatorial courtesy that both parties have long respected. In fact, the seat Mr. Brennan will fill on the Seventh Circuit has been held open for 6 years by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Johnson, via the same process, the blue slip. When Barack Obama was President and when Patrick Leahy was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we Democrats obeyed the blue slip, and it led that seat to be vacant for 6 years. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Republican majority will ignore the blue-slip rights of the Democratic Senator even though it fervently believes that we ought to listen to the rights of the Republican Senator from Wisconsin. The actions of the Republican leader erode one of the few remaining customs in the Senate that forces consultation and consensus on judicial nominations.

In the grand scheme of things, the vote may seem to some of my colleagues on the other side like a small one--one judge for one circuit court. But in truth, the vote on Mr. Brennan is a death by a thousand cuts of the grand tradition of bipartisanship and comity in the U.S. Senate. I know all too well that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle, but if we don't take a step back now, the Senate will soon become a rubberstamp or graveyard for Presidential nominees, rendering our advice and consent nearly meaningless.

I understand the pressure on the leader from the hard right. They want judges who are not bipartisan. They wanted a judge in this case who did not go through a bipartisan judicial panel, composed of both Democrats and Republicans, who have always sent us judges from Wisconsin. Two were sent, but, instead, Brennan, who couldn't get through the panel, was sent.

This is so wrong. This goes beyond what we have seen done before. When Leader McConnell changed the rules on the Supreme Court--which we didn't--many on the other side, I understand, said: Well, that is tit for tat because Democrats changed the rules on the lower courts. But the blue-slip tradition has always been obeyed. We didn't change that. We could have. We could have stuffed through our nominees with no Republican support, but we didn't.

I hope for the sake of comity that one or two of my Republican colleagues will stand up and vote against Mr. Brennan's nomination, not because of his beliefs--which they may agree with, for all I know--but for the sake of the Senate, for the grand tradition of the Senate, for the right afforded to every Senator to consult on judges from their State, minority or majority, and most of all, for the traditions that have held this body together for more than two centuries and separated it from the more partisan Chamber on the other end of the Capitol.

Madam President, on another matter--North Korea--early this morning, the three American hostages who were being held in North Korea were returned home. It was great to see them come home, back in America, back with their families.

It is a wonderful thing, but the exultation by the President and others of the greatness of North Korea doing this evades me. We can't be fooled into giving the North Korean regime credit for returning Americans who never should have been detained in the first place. American citizens are not diplomatic bargaining chips. While we celebrate the return of the three Americans, for the sake of their freedom and their families, we should not feel as if we need to give Kim Jong Un anything in return.

It is troubling to hear President Trump say that Kim Jong Un treated the Americans excellently. Kim Jong Un is a dictator. He capriciously detained American citizens, robbed them of their freedom, and didn't let them go home to their families. Their release should not be exalted; it should be expected. It is no great accomplishment of Kim Jong Un to do this.

When the President does this, he weakens American foreign policy and puts Americans at risk around the world. If our adversaries look at what the President has said in reaction to Kim Jong Un, why shouldn't they detain American citizens and get a huge pat on the back when they release them?

It is like so many of the President's foreign policy actions--quick, not thought through, related to show and to ego. If our adversaries from Iran to China who already wrongfully hold Americans think they can get something--praise, standing, diplomatic concessions--by unlawfully detaining Americans in their country, you can bet they will try. These are bad people, the leaders of these dictatorships like Iran.

So I caution the administration. We are all rooting for diplomacy to succeed on the Korean Peninsula, but we cannot sacrifice the safety of American citizens around the world in exchange for an illusory veneer of peace. I worry that this President, in his eagerness to get acclaim and a photo op, will strike a quick and bad deal, not a strong and lasting one. President Trump and Secretary Pompeo must seek strong, verifiable, enduring commitments from North Korea to disarm.

Madam President, now on oil prices and Iran, earlier this week the President exited the Iran deal. We all know that. Even as someone who opposed the deal--which I did because I thought it was flawed; I thought President Obama and Secretary Kerry should have waited longer and given more time for the sanctions to bite, and we would have gotten a stronger and better deal. I still believe that. But once the deal is in place, it seems to me that we should not be focused on undoing this deal. We don't want a nuclear Iran. That is one of the reasons I opposed the deal. But there is no report from anybody, including our own intelligence, that Iran is violating that part of the deal.

In the meantime, Iran is doing some very bad things. It is not a country we should admire or respect in any way--the leadership, anyway. They are trying to develop an ICBM. They are creating havoc with the Houthis in Yemen. Worst of all, in my opinion, the greatest immediate danger is that there are Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops in Syria, right near Israel's border, and hundreds, if not thousands, of deadly rockets that Iran gives to Hezbollah, a militant terrorist organization. They placed them in Lebanon where they have hegemony in certain areas. That is the greatest danger to Israel. That is the greatest danger to peace in the Middle East. Down the road, it will be the greatest danger to the United States, at least in the next several years.

What we should be doing is not undoing this deal right now but creating new sanctions and telling Iran that if they continue giving missiles to Hezbollah, if they continue sending troops to Iran, if they continue their activities with the Houthis and the placing of additional missiles, we will put on additional sanctions. That is the smartest thing to do, and that is what is most in need now, given America's and the world's security needs. But we need our allies to do it.

Sanctions don't work when they are unilateral. We learned that in South Africa years ago with apartheid. Only when the sanctions became broad and enacted by many nations did they have an effect. It is the same situation here.

The United States, by pulling out of the agreement and getting our European allies' noses way out of joint, makes it far harder to enact new sanctions on what I perceive to be the greatest dangers we face.

There is one other thing Americans should realize about pulling out of the Iran deal, and that is it affects gasoline prices across the country. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, gas prices will rise over the summer, and the average American family can expect to pay $200 more this driving season than last. The Iran deal is certainly some part of that. For middle-class families, $200 this summer is more than the tax break they will get, if they get one at all.

When President Trump makes rash decisions without consideration of the consequences and no coherent strategy, which is what has happened with Iran, the American people pay the price in many different ways: security, the declining ability to find and go after the greatest dangers we face with Iran, and money out of our own pocketbooks with an increase in gasoline prices. One of the ways Americans will pay for President Trump's unthought-out decision to exit the Iran deal will be at the gas pump this summer.

So again, to repeat, I didn't think the deal was a good deal; still, I am proud I voted no. But at this time, in this place, and for so many reasons, pulling out precipitously without our allies involved does not achieve anything, does not achieve the goals we need to achieve, and hurts Americans in different ways.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Thank you, Mr. President.

First, I want to spend a moment in recognition of Teacher Appreciation Week. I am sure everyone here remembers a teacher who inspired them, challenged them, and propelled them to greater heights. I will never forget Mrs. Roberts, the Cunningham Junior High School teacher who opened my eyes up to science; Mrs. Riley, who inspired a love of literature; and I will never forget Mrs. Wagman, who kindled my interests in government and politics, an interest that never died.

That is what great teachers do. They open doors previously thought closed. They work day and night to give every one of us the opportunity to succeed. What a noble calling.

In my view, teaching in the 21st century should be the same kind of exalted profession as law or medicine was in the 20th century. It is such an important job, in terms of our future, our economy--competing with China. The education of our young people is No. 1. Often around here we forget that, and in many of the States they have forgotten it.

Teachers enjoy their jobs. They make huge financial sacrifices. Many of them could make much more money in another profession. So I think we should appreciate teachers, not only in thanking them--I thanked three who changed my life, and there are many more--but we should thank them by rewarding them financially because it is such an important profession.

Mr. President, secondly, I would like to address the news this morning that Secretary of State Pompeo will be returning from North Korea with the three Americans who were held there against their will. We are all glad to see them returning home. Their families are delighted. We are all delighted.

Let's not forget, this is not some great give on North Korea's part. We cannot forget that no regime has the right to hold American citizens in captivity without cause. Under no circumstances should American citizens be viewed as bargaining chips by foreign capitals. I hope President Trump and Secretary Pompeo are clear about that because the same goes for other countries wrongly detaining Americans--Iran, China. If countries in the world think they can detain Americans and get something in return, we will see many more hostages.

So we are all rooting for the diplomacy with North Korea to succeed and, in that respect, I urge the Trump administration to work with our allies with a coordinated and considered strategy to see if we can denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, but the hostages shouldn't be part of it. We are happy they have returned, but North Korea shouldn't gain by taking Americans and then releasing them.

Mr. President, in a few hours, the Senate will vote to proceed to the nomination of Michael Brennan to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Brennan has not received a blue slip--that is a notice of approval that has been a tradition in the Senate--from one of his home State Senators, Ms. Baldwin. So the vote today will be a slap in the face to the custom of senatorial courtesy. It will be a slap in the face to the bipartisanship we hear so many on the other side of the aisle and so many more Americans talk about. It is blatant disrespect to every Senator who wants to withhold his or her judgment on a judge, a tradition that has been respected by Democrats and Republicans until Leader McConnell abruptly changed this earlier this year for circuit court judges.

What makes this even more galling is the history of this vacancy on the Seventh Circuit. Mr. Brennan will fill the seat that had been held open by Wisconsin's other Senator for 6 years during the Obama administration. Well, how was Senator Johnson able to withhold? He didn't return his blue slip, and Senator Leahy, the Democratic chair, respected it. The same should prove true for Senator Baldwin. She should get the same respect from Senator McConnell and Chairman Grassley that Senator Johnson got for this same seat from then-Leader Reid and Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but, no, our Republican colleagues keep changing the rules.

Senator Johnson's right to refuse a judge from his home State, which, as I said, was respected by then-Chairman Leahy, was defended publicly in an op-ed by--guess who--Mr. Brennan himself. He wrote an op-ed--he was not a nominee for judge then--saying Johnson's right to hold the seat open should be respected. Now he is on the floor with the blue slip being ignored for the first time since I have been here, since 1998.

How is Senator Baldwin's right to consult on judges for her State any less important than Senator Johnson's? It is mind-bending hypocrisy, it is an appalling double standard, and it is another erosion of minority rights and the tradition of comity that I know so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle wish played a greater role in the Senate.

Furthermore, as Senator Baldwin has talked about, they have always had a bipartisan commission recommending judges in Wisconsin. There were several nominees who got through that bipartisan commission, needing both Democratic and Republican support to get through that commission. As I understand it, they were ignored by the White House, and Mr. Brennan, a hard-right nominee--I am not sure if he didn't pass the committee or wouldn't have passed the bipartisan committee of Wisconsin--is here on the floor. This is the second time we are going to be voting on a judge who didn't receive both blue slips. There will be another hearing today in the Judiciary Committee on Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit in Oregon, even though he didn't receive a blue slip from Senator Wyden or Senator Merkley.

I would admonish my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is a very dangerous road you are treading. As everyone knows, the winds of political change blow swiftly in America. The minority one day is the majority the next. There will come a day when the shoe will be on the other foot once again, and I don't think my friends will be too happy if they are not afforded the courtesy of consulting on home State judges.

I like the tradition of bipartisanship when it comes to judges. I argued privately with Leader Reid that we shouldn't remove the 60 votes. I was successful on the Supreme Court--he didn't include that-- but not on district court and circuit court judges. So in a tit for tat--I understand that--Leader McConnell said that we are doing it for the Supreme Court too. But the blue slips are a whole new world.

I have always had three standards for the judges I participate in choosing for New York. Excellence--they should be legally excellent, not political actors. Diversity--I like diversity on the bench when we can get it. We always try, and we have had a lot of success in New York. But I also like moderation. I don't like judges to the far right--that is obvious--but I also don't like judges to the far left because judges who are ideologues tend to believe they can make law rather than interpret law.

Week by week, month by month, year by year, the bounds--both sides of the aisle are somewhat to blame, but this blue slip goes way beyond-- and the tradition of bipartisanship that have kept judges more in the center, that have kept judges who tend to interpret the law rather than make it have evaporated. Once the blue slips are gone, that is the last vestige. There will be little incentive for the majority to consult the minority on judicial nominations. That is objectively not a good thing. We want judges who are qualified, evenhanded, not partisan instruments. A Senate that acts only as a rubberstamp for the President's nominees is not doing its job, and we may as well not advise and consent if the party in power, even by one vote as it is here today, just rubberstamps every one of the President's judges.

So I urge my Republican friends to consider the larger implications of the vote on Michael Brennan--the seat that was vacant for 6 years in response to the blue slip. By the way, Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley signed a letter with Leader Reid--then-Majority Leader Reid-- not to get rid of the blue slip, which he listened to. So if you want to talk about tit for tat, this one doesn't belong. Reid kept the blue slip, even though lots of vacancies stayed for a lot longer than a year. McConnell is getting rid of it for circuit court judges, and it is a move away from an impartial, nonpolitical judiciary.

Every Senator, if he or she were facing what Senator Baldwin is facing today, would want this body to defend their rights. I would urge at least one or two of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to vote in lockstep and for the sake of the Senate, for the sake of the country, to vote no on Brennan, whether you agree with his views or not, as a protest to the way this has happened.

Mr. President, now, there is one final topic--net neutrality. Later today, Democrats will take the Senate another step toward the consideration of a resolution to restore net neutrality. When the Republican-led FCC voted to repeal net neutrality in December, they handed the large internet service providers all the cards. They said: Do what you will with the internet. Charge consumers more for faster service if you like or segment the internet into packages forcing the average family to purchase faster times for their favorite websites. Let big corporations purchase faster internet service while startups, small businesses, and consumers are left in the dust. Public schools, rural Americans, communities of color, or anyone in a remote area or without substantial resources could be at a significant disadvantage if the ISPs start charging more for decent internet.

People say: Well, let a private company do whatever it wants. Let them charge whatever they want. But in certain goods, which are essential, we don't do that--utilities, highways. The same thing now applies to the internet. It is a necessity, and we have to have protections for average folks, for small businesses, for working families. That is why Democrats are so concerned about net neutrality and why we are trying to restore it. We believe that the internet should be kept free and open like our highways--accessible and affordable to every American, regardless of the ability to pay. It is not that you don't pay; it is that if you are a little guy or gal, you shouldn't pay a lot more than the big shots. We don't do that on highways, we don't do that with utilities, and we shouldn't do it on the internet, which is another modern, 21st-century highway that is a necessity.

Every Democrat supports our net neutrality CRA, as well as one Republican, Senator Collins. Unlike most legislation, Democrats can force a vote on the floor of the Senate on our proposal. Today, Senator Markey will take the first step in that process. He is going to discharge the CRA from the Commerce Committee to the Senate calendar. That means we will have a vote on the ability to preserve net neutrality and help the little guy pay for services on the internet, and that will make that vote available next week. So I urge average Americans--young people, old people, everyone in between--and small businesses to email, call, write, visit your Senator on the Republican side, and urge them to preserve net neutrality. It is only right, it is only fair, and it makes economic sense.

No matter what, my friends on the other side are going to have to put themselves on the record on this issue. Whose side are you on--the big internet and cable providers or the average consumer who depends on the internet? This vote can be summed up in one phrase: Whose side are you on? I urge all Americans--particularly younger Americans who get this better than my generation because they have lived with the internet their whole life--to contact their Senators this week and next week before the vote and demand that their Senator restore net neutrality.

Americans, please contact your Senators. Your wallet and well-being, in ways far more significant than most things we do here, depend on it.

I yield the floor.