Floor Statements

Madam President, the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has created one of the most consequential vacancies on the High Court that this country has ever seen. There is a reason pundits have often referred to the Supreme Court as the ``Kennedy Court.'' His influence on so many politically salient cases cannot be overstated. During his 30 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy was often the swing vote in decisions decided 5 to 4 on a divided bench of the Supreme Court. These include some of the most historic cases in our Nation's history: on a woman's right to choose, environmental protections, and same-sex marriage.

In 1992 Justice Kennedy wrote the controlling opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade's core holding that the Constitution protects a woman's right to make a fundamental decision about her own healthcare, including a woman's right to choose.

In 2007 Justice Kennedy joined a 5-to-4 opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA must regulate those emissions under that statute, unless it can provide a scientific basis for its refusal to do so.

In 2013 Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in United States v. Windsor, striking down as unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act because it violated basic due process and equal protection principles by extending certain Federal benefits to opposite-sex married couples but denying those same benefits to same-sex married couples.

In 2015 Justice Kennedy wrote the landmark opinion on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marriage.

In 2016 Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down a restrictive anti-choice law in Texas because it put an undue burden on women's access to reproductive healthcare services.

All of these decisions were decided by the single vote of a single Supreme Court Justice. That Justice was Anthony Kennedy. The Justice who succeeds Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to leave a deep and lasting mark on issues of the highest constitutional magnitude--issues that impact the health and freedom of women, the environment, LGBTQ rights, consumer protection, labor protections, affirmative action, criminal justice, gun safety, and more.

There are, without a doubt, important issues that will be decided. These will be the most important decisions of our generation, and this Supreme Court will be in a position to make that history.

Justice Kennedy's retirement handed President Trump the opportunity to fulfill his campaign promise to shift the balance of power on the Supreme Court to the far right on these issues. So the President dusted off a preapproved list of candidates for the High Court--a wish list prepared and presented to him by the ultraconservative Federalist Society. This is the same list of candidates that the Federalist Society assured President Trump would satisfy his litmus test of overturning Roe v. Wade and striking down critical healthcare protections. This is the same set of candidates from which the President selected Neil Gorsuch to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat--the seat that Senate Republicans stole when they violated all norms of Senate procedure by refusing even to hold a hearing on President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. In the short time that Justice Gorsuch has been on the Supreme Court, he has proven himself to be every bit of the far-right conservative Justice that the Federalist Society promised he would be.

DC Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh's name was on that Federalist Society's wish list as well. With the President's nomination of him to the Nation's highest Court, the President has found another Federalist Society-approved jurist whom he believes will pass his litmus test, and that should concern every single American.

Brett Kavanaugh is a judicial conservative's dream come true--a young jurist who will push the Supreme Court to the right for decades to come. His record on issues such as access to healthcare, consumer and environmental protections, and a free and open internet portend a rubberstamp for a conservative, right-wing agenda that would move us backward as a nation.

At the same time, it is very concerning that Judge Kavanaugh, who once served as Ken Starr's top deputy in the White Water and Monica Lewinsky investigations of President Clinton, has said that a sitting President should not be investigated for allegations of wrongdoing, should not be indicted or tried while he is in office, and should not have to participate in civil legal proceedings until he leaves office. This is from a veteran of Ken Starr's staff, leading the investigation against President Clinton throughout the Monica Lewinsky investigation. It is no coincidence that a President who now fears all of these legal actions would nominate a judge who could shield him from those legal actions.

Perhaps the gravest concern that the Kavanaugh nomination raises is the fate of Roe v. Wade. For 45 years, Roe has not just protected access to safe and legal procedures for women in our country, but it has affirmed the constitutional right to privacy. Roe recognizes that all Americans must be able to make their own personal health decisions based on their own beliefs, needs, and circumstances.

Judge Kavanaugh's record on the DC Circuit inspires no confidence that he will protect this fundamental right. He has supported restricting access to contraception, and he recently would have forced an undocumented minor in Texas to delay receiving a safe and legal termination of her pregnancy despite her taking all of the necessary steps to access that procedure under Texas State law. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh will almost certainly have more opportunities to inject the government into women's decisions about their own bodies.

Over recent years, State legislators across the country and their allies have pushed the boundaries of restrictions on legal abortion. Challenges to these laws are winding their way through the judicial system now and could certainly land in the welcoming arms of a nominee whom the Federalist Society have assured the President would reverse Roe v. Wade.

Confirming Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is an invitation for anti-choice advocates to intensify their crusade against women having access to procedures which they choose to make, taking them closer to their dream of overturning Roe v. Wade and turning back the clock on women's health freedom and economic security.

Let's be clear. Overturning Roe wouldn't end these procedures across this country. It would just end safe abortions that women would have access to.

Those across the country who care about protecting individual liberty and autonomy in healthcare decisions, including access to safe and legal procedures, are galvanized and mobilized politically in a way we haven't seen in a generation. They are organized, and I believe they will bring that political power to bear in opposition to the Kavanaugh nomination. Our judicial system--and the Supreme Court, in particular-- has a special role in our democracy as a neutral arbiter of the law. The American people must have faith that this institution and its Justices will uphold this sacred responsibility.

Stepping back and from a larger perspective, looking at the Affordable Care Act, we have to ensure that, ultimately, protections for those with preexisting conditions in the healthcare system, which are guaranteed under ObamaCare, are continued. Every family in our country has somebody with a preexisting condition, and we have to make sure this nomination does not lead to such fundamental changes in the Affordable Care Act, eviscerating those protections and rights.

The President had an opportunity to choose a nominee that would unify this country and assure the public of the independence of the judicial branch. Instead, he shamelessly, in a partisan way, picked someone who would only serve to propel our highest Court into a far-right orthodoxy for generations to come, becoming the ``supreme rightwing court.''

If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, women's freedom to make decisions about their bodies, reforms to our healthcare system, the quality of our air and water, and much more will be at risk. This is a critical moment for our country and much too important for any Senator to rubberstamp this nominee in the name of deference to the President.

I am going to fight this nominee every step of the way, and I ask every American to join me in this fight. We will need all Americans to organize, to march, to raise their voices, and to say: Judge Kavanaugh does not represent the values we need on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Thank you.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019.

I thank Senate leadership and the Appropriations Committee for their work on this legislation.

The Appropriations Committee's effort this year to return the Senate to regular order on annual spending bills is commendable, and the leadership of the committee honors a bipartisan commitment to keep the most controversial policy language out of these pieces of legislation.

While we can agree that the legislation is indeed absent of unrelated policy riders, that does not mean all of the appropriations it contains and the resulting policy implications of those appropriations are good.

One such misguided priority within this bill is funding an unnecessary, destabilizing, and thoroughly underexplained expansion of America's nuclear arsenal.

In particular, the Fiscal Year 2019 Energy and Water Appropriations Act contains $65 million in funding to develop a new so-called low- yield nuclear weapon warhead: the W76-2. This is a new nuclear weapon that we simply just do not need. For this reason, I opposed this bill.

I made clear during Senate consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act that developing the W76-2 low-yield nuclear warhead creates a new nuclear weapon that is unnecessary to maintain America's nuclear deterrent.

This need for a new low-yield nuclear weapon first came to light just 5 months ago in the Trump administration's Nuclear Posture Review.

I have seen no documents, reports, or studies justifying the W76-2 or supporting its immediate development, and serious questions remain unanswered.

Why are the hundreds of low-yield nuclear weapons that we already have, like the B61 bomb and air-launched cruise missile, not adequate?

Where will these new W76-2 nuclear weapons be deployed?

On how many of our boomer submarines will we be placing these weapons and on what schedule?

What targets will we no longer hold at risk with strategic nuclear weapons to accommodate these new low-yield weapons?

Since this W76-2 low-yield nuclear weapon will be launched using the same rockets as our strategic thermonuclear weapons and off of the exact same submarines, how can anyone distinguish whether it is one or the other?

Somehow, answers to these questions have not been written down anywhere. Instead, we are simply told ``we need the low yield nuclear weapon to deter the Russians and prevent an escalate to de-escalate scenario.''

The United States already has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade our existing nuclear weapons systems as part of the existing nuclear modernization program, systems that are in excess of what we need to maintain our nuclear deterrence.

So it just makes no sense to spend money to develop new nuclear weapons.

In doing so, we are making America and the world less safe, not more. We are throwing away decades of American leadership trying to move the world away from nuclear weapons and the existential threat they pose to all of us.

That is why I filed an amendment to redirect funds that the Trump administration would use to develop this wasteful and unnecessary low- yield nuclear weapon towards preparing for nonproliferation activities that will be essential to helping denuclearize North Korea whether now or at some point in the future.

I regret that my amendment was not considered during the floor debate on this bill, but I still believe that Congress needs to seriously consider the consequences of authorizing and appropriating funds for this new weapon.

I am more worried than ever that this crucial debate has not and is not receiving the attention that it deserves. I hope, moving forward, we can change that and that the Senate will appropriately consider the magnitude of the decisions we are making here today.

A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. They are fundamentally different than anything else in the world, and they must be treated as such.

In the absence of a full debate on the floor of this Chamber that allows the American people to understand what is truly at stake with this new weapon, I could not support this legislation.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I first thank Senator Merkley from Oregon for organizing this very important session tonight.

Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions unveiled the Trump administration's new zero tolerance immigration policy. Whether you come to this land fleeing violence, poverty, or persecution, justice isn't blind. It is now also brutal.

This inhumane policy sends a shudder down the spine of the Statue of Liberty, but not that of our President. Zero tolerance really means zero refuge. Zero tolerance really means zero discretion. Zero tolerance really means zero humanity.

The Trump administration's mindless approach to our broken immigration system takes away the ability of Federal law enforcement officers to exercise any discretion that might be warranted based on the facts and circumstances on the ground. In other words, zero tolerance is an anti-immigrant dragnet, the shocking effects of which we have been witnessing these past few days as children have literally been ripped from their parents' arms and separated from them, as their mothers and fathers are taken into custody.

These horrific images were finally enough, even for President Trump. This afternoon, he signed an Executive order that he says addresses the family separation crisis. It does no such thing. The Executive order that the President signed doesn't end the zero tolerance policy of prosecuting anyone and everyone who crosses the border. It reaffirms it.

If all parents are still being prosecuted as criminals, which the Executive order requires, what does this Executive order actually do? We can only assume that this Executive order would imprison, remand, and incarcerate children--some as newborns--into the same correctional facilities as their parents. They would be sleeping in cages instead of cribs.

In this country, our courts have decided that this treatment of children and families is malicious. In the Flores agreement, more than 20 years ago, we stopped this practice. Now, the President wants to bring it back with a vengeance.

The Executive order directs the Attorney General to try to modify the Flores agreement, but any attempt to undermine the critical protections for children that this landmark settlement has put in place should and will face immediate court challenge. Families and children don't belong in jail, period.

Our President's Executive order does not ask for trained child welfare workers to carry out his wishes. He has called in the military. He expects this cold-blooded tactic--a tactic he is using to negotiate his wall--to be implemented by the Pentagon.

Now, what does that mean? Apparently, he envisions internment camps, using existing military brigs or other facilities to lock up these families. It sounds like a return to the shameful internment camps of the 1940s, during World War II, one of the darkest chapters in our Nation's history. We know how that ended--with the Federal Government paying more than $1 billion to right a wrong that could never actually be corrected. It was a mistake that we should not even contemplate repeating.

So President Trump first manufactured this crisis at the border, and his new Executive order makes it worse. The only thing President Trump wants to solve is the public relations nightmare he has plunged his administration into.

This is not a PR stunt. These are children's lives at stake. How we respond to this crisis will define the character of each and every one of us. It will define our character as a nation. At this critical moral juncture, I ask each of my colleagues to choose humanity.

To my Republican friends, your voices carry weight in this conversation, especially with this administration in power. Use your voices. Make clear that this Executive order will not end the suffering that this administration is inflicting on vulnerable immigrant families, because in the United States we do not keep children in jails or military prisons. We do not criminalize asylum seekers. We welcome immigrants for their contributions. We seek immigrants for their talents. We proudly remember our own families who came across a border, whether land or water, knowing this country meant a new start.

We are better than this. We must be better than this. The President wants to send a message that immigrants aren't welcome in America. His leadership may be devoid of compassion, but the American people are not. This policy must end.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on behalf of the amendment being offered by my colleagues Senator Warren from Massachusetts and Ranking Member Jack Reed from Rhode Island. I strongly support this amendment, and I want to explain why.

A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, period. They are the only human-made force that could destroy all of humanity in a matter of minutes. They annihilate utterly and completely. The size of the bomb does not matter. Using any nuclear weapon is a step so grave that it is, in and of itself, an act of war. It also invites nuclear retaliation. That is why President Ronald Reagan was right when he said: ``A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.''

Nuclear weapons are fundamentally different than any other military capability we possess. Congress must have a role in determining when these weapons are developed, how they are managed, and if, Heaven forbid, we must ever use them again.

Oversight is one of the fundamental responsibilities of this body, and on no issue is it more important than nuclear weapons. That is why I support what Senator Warren and Senator Reed are doing. It rightly protects the role Congress must play in determining if and when we as a nation decide to develop more of the most lethal weapons on the planet.

What Senator Warren and Senator Reed are doing is ensuring that Congress must authorize developing new or modified nuclear weapons because that is all important. This authority was written into law years ago. It was a bipartisan compromise that passed 96 to 0. Congressional oversight of nuclear weapons development and deployment has long enjoyed bipartisan support, and it should now as well.

There are many, myself included, who believe we should go even further. As the only Nation to have ever used nuclear weapons against another country, the United States has a special responsibility to lead global efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate the world's nuclear weapons. This is an important issue. I am a realist, and I realize, as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States must have a credible nuclear deterrent that is safe, secure, and reliable.

Appropriately striking this balance is one of the most consequential issues, not only for our Nation but for the whole world. It is why, for decades, Congress has played a crucial bipartisan role overseeing our Nation's nuclear arsenal. The debates have been heated. We have not always agreed, but we recognize Congress must be involved. This must continue to be the case moving forward.

So I thank Senator Reed and Senator Warren for their leadership in offering this amendment, which goes right to the heart of the question of what the role of the Congress is on this most important of all issues--the authorization for the development of nuclear weapons in our country.

From the beginning of the nuclear era, when President Roosevelt involved the Congress in the development of the Manhattan Project, until today, it has always been critical that those who are most concerned about this issue, the American people, have their elected representatives in the room.

I thank Senator Reed and Senator Warren for their leadership on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to raise my concerns over the outcome of the summit between the United States and North Korea.

Now, after witnessing heated rhetoric from both sides, the unexpected turn toward diplomacy by President Trump and Kim Jong Un was, by all accounts, a very welcome development. As there is no military solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis, I was encouraged to see direct engagement, and I have long advocated for this approach. However, I am concerned that the agreement signed this morning does little to address the threats and challenges we face.

First, the text of the statement was the most vague and least detailed of any signed by North Korea over the past three decades. Despite his claims to the contrary, President Trump got a weaker deal, with fewer commitments, than any of his predecessors. Nowhere does the document explain what ``complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula'' means. For example, Kim Jong Un can easily interpret the language to mean he will only relinquish his nuclear weapons once the United States does the same. After all, history shows us that North Korea interprets the term ``Korean Peninsula'' to include any U.S. nuclear weapon capable of striking North Korea. The loopholes in the agreement, it seems, are big enough to fly nuclear missiles through.

By contrast, previous agreements were much more stringent. The 1992 joint declaration signed by North and South Korea, for example, included conditions such as ``South and North Korea shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy, or use nuclear weapons,'' and ``South and North Korea shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities.'' Unfortunately, neither of those commitments appears in the latest agreement. The language instead suggests something worrying.

As the administration must have realized this agreement was not as strong as the previous ones, it appears it was unable to convince North Korea to adopt tougher, more detailed commitments. If true, we should take the hint that North Korea has not yet felt the economic pressure necessary to compel it to accept our definition of ``denuclearization''--one where the Kim regime relinquishes its nuclear weapons and its means to produce more.

It appears, Kim Jong Un, having stockpiled a wide range of illicit and dangerous weapons, believes he is negotiating from a position of strength, rather than from a position of weakness. While the Trump administration said it has imposed maximum pressure, the truth is, we haven't yet reached that level that could be called maximum pressure.

North Korea must understand that even if China eases the pressure, we in Congress are ready to step in to tighten the screws on the North Korean economy.

President Trump appears to have made a second unforced error. By agreeing to curtail our joint military exercises with the South Koreans, President Trump let Kim Jong Un dictate our military activities with other countries. By proclaiming that our exercises are ``provocative,'' he has adopted the North Korea propaganda. By proclaiming that our exercises are ``expensive,'' he showed that he does not grasp our alliance commitments. Yes, some military exercises are costly, but as any businessperson should know, the more important indicator is value. If a high cost is outweighed by even greater benefits, then we should be willing to pay the cost.

Our military exercises improve the readiness of our forces to deter and, if necessary, defeat North Korean aggression. Will North Korea be sufficiently deterred without U.S. and South Korean forces standing shoulder to shoulder? Will the chance of conflict decrease?

It was telling--and very regrettable--that the South Korean Government needed to issue a statement asking the Trump administration to clarify its comment about military exercises. It seems the Blue House in South Korea was not consulted.

What signal does it send to China that our presence in the region, which has helped keep peace and stability for decades, may be sacrificed to save a bit of money? The Trump administration might have unwittingly given a green light to China to pursue more aggressive actions in the region.

Now, I have been warning that we must watch out for the old Kim family playbook--one that has been used throughout the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. Well, the Kim family playbook was on the field yet again last night, and President Trump fell for all of the plays.

As it has done in the past, North Korea showed it is trying to, No. 1, front load the rewards and delay concessions. As indicated by the post-summit statement from China's Foreign Ministry, Pyongyang and Beijing already appear to be working together to remove sanctions despite the lack of tangible evidence of denuclearization.

No. 2, from the Kim family playbook, use sleight of hand to make irrelevant actions seem meaningful. By supposedly demolishing its nuclear test site and a missile engine test stand, North Korea is claiming it has made real progress, despite not destroying a single warhead or missile.

No. 3, in the Kim family playbook, exploit ambiguity. The Trump-Kim agreement is so vague that it imposes no clear requirements on North Korea. What we should want is reconciliation, not repetition of what has happened decade after decade when the Kim family uses its playbook to delay concessions they make while front-end loading the rewards they receive.

We can all agree that we need a plan to stop North Korea's plutonium production and uranium enrichment, that suspends and then eliminates its ballistic missile program, that permanently dismantles and removes all of its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and that implements a compliance inspection program with a strong verification regime--suspend, eliminate, dismantle, remove, and verify every single step of the way.

Most of us agree on what a deal should look like, but the trick is figuring out how to get there, and the hard work lies ahead to successfully navigate the hazards.

No. 1, do not sell out our allies. We must not allow North Korea to believe the alliance framework, which has served as the foundation for regional peace and security, is anything other than unshakeable. Unfortunately, South Korea seemed to be caught off guard by President Trump's announcement on military exercises.

No. 2, do not prematurely release the pressure valve. China, North Korea's chief enabler, already is easing pressure on North Korea. North Korean goods already are becoming more abundant in China, despite being banned by United Nations Security Council resolutions, and immediately following the summit, the Chinese Foreign Ministry suggested making adjustments to existing sanctions on North Korea.

If China wants to be taken seriously as a responsible global power, it cannot shirk its duties to enforce sanctions on serial violators like North Korea. If North Korea backslides at any point, China must be tougher on North Korea, including cutting off all of the crude oil exports to the North Korean regime, which still flows in every day from China.

No. 3, focus on the threat at hand. North Korea's nuclear warheads and other dangerous weapons and their delivery systems are real threats. The administration must not fall for North Korea's inevitable theatrics and false concessions, as we cannot afford to be sidetracked. After all, nothing would stop North Korea from conducting another nuclear or missile test if it even believes its warheads and missiles need more testing.

No. 4, build American diplomatic capability and infrastructure. Diplomacy is a team sport, and no matter what commitments leaders make, it is only through a well-staffed and well-resourced professional diplomatic core that it becomes a reality. The State Department must have the resources it needs to conduct American foreign policy around the globe and especially with regard to Asia and North Korea.

The outcome of this summit clearly indicates how much we need the advice of career diplomats and technical experts.

And, No. 5, come to Congress. To achieve a lasting solution to the crisis,

the Trump administration must work with Congress to shape the contours of any future deal. Any final agreement should take the form of a treaty, to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, so as to increase its shelf life.

Without following principles like this and without a clear understanding of our previous diplomatic efforts with North Korea, we could fail. We owe it to our fellow Americans to successfully reduce the threats we face because the threats from North Korea are significant.

Unlike other countries with nuclear programs, North Korea already possesses thermonuclear warheads and the ballistic missiles to deliver them. It has shorter range missiles that cast a dark shadow over our allies, South Korea and Japan. Pyongyang possesses some of the foulest toxins on the planet, and it brutally represses, imprisons, tortures, and kills its own citizens. So we must address these myriad threats.

As it turns out, negotiating with North Korea is harder than the President thought. So we must continue to squeeze the regime so that it cannot access the resources necessary to maintain or expand its military capabilities. After all, a combination of direct engagement, backed by pressure, is the only solution to the North Korean threat to the United States, our allies, and to the broader region.

Now, Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing amendments that I am filing to the National Defense Authorization Act. My amendments would help to reduce the nuclear dangers the world faces today and in the future by either canceling or redirecting funds the Trump administration would use to develop a new so-called low-yield nuclear weapon toward preparing for nonproliferation activities that will be essential to helping denuclearize North Korea.

I also want to thank my colleagues Senators Elizabeth Warren and Jack Reed, who have been tremendous leaders on the Armed Services Committee, in working to ensure that proper congressional authorization is secured for any new or modified nuclear weapons. There is no more important job for Congress than stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and I thank Senators Warren and Reed for their leadership and commitment to this important task.

Let's be clear. When the Trump administration talks about a so-called low-yield nuclear weapon, they are still referring to nuclear weapons comparable to the nuclear bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in the Second World War. There is no such thing as a low-yield nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, and they are fundamentally different than any other tool of war. They destabilize. They annihilate. They force others to do the same. This is where the term ``MAD,'' or mutually assured destruction, comes from.

For these reasons, they should never be used, and we should never falter in the ongoing struggle to reduce and eventually eliminate the danger nuclear weapons pose to the world.

But, instead, the Trump administration wants new nuclear weapons, and, unfortunately, its efforts to develop new, more usable low-yield nuclear weapons, like the W76-2, seem to be driven more by political requirements than by military requirements. Our military commanders didn't ask for this or any other nuclear weapon. Instead, the Trump administration told them that they were getting this new low-yield nuclear weapon in its Nuclear Posture Review earlier this year, which needlessly expanded our nuclear warfighting capabilities and threatened new scenarios under which we might use our nuclear weapons to respond. The Nuclear Posture Review called for new low-yield weapons, like the W76-2, for unretiring old, Cold War-era ones like the B-83 megaton gravity bomb and expanding the scenarios under which we might respond with nuclear weapons.

We already have hundreds of low-yield nuclear weapons, including the B61 gravity bomb and an air-launched cruise missile, and we will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade these systems, as well as to develop a new stealth bomber and fighter aircraft to deliver them, as part of the existing nuclear modernization program.

Given this current capacity, as well as the lack of any documents, reports, or studies justifying the sudden, previously unrecognized, need for a new low-yield weapon as part of America's nuclear deterrent, it is hard to understand why we need to spend more money to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon that will add additional strain to a nuclear complex that is already operating at levels unseen since the Cold War and that could jeopardize the existing modernization program which enjoys bipartisan support and which our military leaders have said is the most important nuclear requirement for the military. It makes no sense to spend more money to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon, dangerously indistinguishable from a strategic one, especially when our military does not need it. They did not request it.

That is why I have fought this weapon from the very start and am offering an amendment to focus on funding activities that will be necessary to reduce the nuclear danger to the world--whether now or in the future--instead of adding to it by developing a completely unjustified low-yield weapon that adds to the risk that we can actually contemplate fighting a winnable nuclear war. That makes no sense whatsoever--a new nuclear weapon that the Pentagon did not ask for. We should be heading in the opposite direction. That is the signal that we should be sending to the rest of the world.

With regard to the summit, my hope is that there will be some details that indicate what the concessions have been made by Kim to the United States and to the world. Thus far, there is no evidence of that. I fear that the only thing that will last from this summit will be the photo, because we will not have had the concessions made that, on a verifiable basis can, in fact, be confirmed and that make the Korean Peninsula and make the world a safer place to be.

So today is a momentous day. This will be a momentous week on the floor of the Senate, as well, in the debate of this new armed services bill, and I am looking forward to this incredibly important discussion.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I wish to follow up on what the Democratic leader was making reference to with regard to net neutrality. Today is the day when net neutrality rules are gone, even though there is a way in which we, the Congress, can put them right back on the books. That is what happened in the Senate 3 weeks ago, when we voted 52 to 47 to put the net neutrality protections back on the books to ensure that they would be there for every American. As Senator Schumer was just pointing out, the ball is in the court of the House of Representatives--the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. We passed net neutrality in the Senate on a bipartisan basis.

Senator Murkowski, Senator Collins, and Senator Kennedy of Louisiana voted for net neutrality. We know, as Senator Schumer just said, that if the vote was taken right now on net neutrality in the House of Representatives, it would win. We would be able to put those protections back on the books. Millions of people rose up throughout the last 6 months of last year, with 22 million of them contacting the FCC. Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the FCC, ignored those 22 million people, and by a 3-to-2 vote on the Federal Communications Commission, they took net neutrality off of the books. In other words, they officially stripped consumers of the protections that have allowed our economy and our democracy to flourish. Now Americans will have to blindly trust their cable companies, their broadband companies, and their internet providers to protect them against discrimination. It is Big Cable's dream come true. They have already won at the FCC, but now the counterrevolution is underway. In the Senate, it has already happened.

What we need to do now is to have the same level of energy with those millions of Americans who are targeting the House of Representatives and telling them that they want net neutrality, that they want nondiscrimination principles, that they want equal protection for the smallest voices, the smallest companies to be the law of the land--net neutrality. We need entrepreneurs; we need job creators, we need small businesses, which are the lifeblood of the American economy, to be protected against the natural tendency of the biggest corporations to pump up profits at the expense of the little guy. Yet you don't have to take my word for it.

In looking back over recent history, before net neutrality protections were codified, in 2007, an Associated Press investigation found that Comcast was blocking or severely slowing down BitTorrent--a website that allowed consumers to share video, music, and video game files. From 2007 to 2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing services from using AT&T's wireless network in order to encourage users to purchase more voice minutes. In 2011, Verizon blocked Google Wallet to protect a competing service that it had a financial stake in developing and promoting.

We all know it is just a matter of time before these big companies will

start to exercise their unfettered right to begin discriminating. Historically, these powerful corporations protect themselves, and they neglect consumer issues; they prioritize profits; they disregard service; they pocket their profits, and everyday Americans lose.

There will be no eulogy for net neutrality here on the floor of the Senate today. The FCC will not have the last word when it comes to net neutrality, but the American people will. We are going to have a tsunami of Americans who will contact their Members of the House of Representatives to demand that it have a vote on net neutrality in the same way we had that vote here on the Senate floor. We know that when that vote takes place that the American people are going to win, that net neutrality is going to win, that the principles of nondiscrimination are going to win.

Too many people today think that this whole idea of discrimination is back in vogue--that you can start talking about it in a way that has not been a part of our culture for a generation. Yet it is back. In a lot of ways, net neutrality is part of that whole discussion of whether or not the American people get protected against discrimination.

We have an enhanced urgency because the FCC's rules are now final, and net neutrality is no longer the law of the land. That is what happened today. The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, is taking his victory lap today. He is so proud of what has happened--that net neutrality has been taken off the books--despite 22 million Americans saying they wanted it to stay on the books.

Here is what we know. Consumers don't trust their cable and internet companies to do the right thing unless strict rules are in place to protect everyone in our country. We know that when you take a democratized platform with endless opportunity for communication and you add American ingenuity, you get economic growth; you get innovation; you get democracy online. That is what this fight is all about, and this fight is far from over. We are going to intensify our efforts to ensure that there is going to be a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Conventional wisdom thought that it was all over last December, that once the FCC voted 3 to 2, it was over. The FCC didn't in any way anticipate the 52-to-47 vote here on the Senate floor to reinstitute net neutrality just 3 weeks ago, and it is dramatically underestimating the response of Americans all across our country who are descending electronically on the House of Representatives--on the part of Congress that has yet to vote on these issues. We are going to see millions of teachers, students, entrepreneurs, small business owners, and activists mobilize to protect the internet. They have demonstrated on the streets. They have written letters. They have made calls. They have signed petitions. They have posted on social media. That is what we are going to continue to see.

Already, 170 Members of the House of Representatives have signed the discharge petition, which is a technical term for saying: Call for a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives to vote on net neutrality. The momentum is building. They need 218. They have 170 right now. They are 48 Members of the House of Representatives short of winning over there. The pressure is going to intensify every single day, especially since net neutrality has now been, as of this moment, taken off the books.

By the way, this fight is being waged at the State level as well. In California, just 2 weeks ago, the State senate voted 25 to 12 to reinstitute net neutrality, and in New York, in Massachusetts, in Oregon, and in Washington--in State after State--they are rising. They are saying: If the Federal Government will not protect us, then we will protect ourselves.

We know that influential lobbyists aren't going to go away, but the American people aren't going to go away either. This is their government. This is the place at which they expect their will to be respected. When net neutrality is taken off the books--an issue that polls at 86 percent of all Americans--the will of the American people is not being respected. There is nothing more powerful than the collective voices of millions of Americans who are working together with a common mission, and that is to restore net neutrality to the books. The campaign to restore the internet, to save the internet, enters a new phase today. The urgency has never been higher, but the intensity level across this country has never been higher. Today is not the day for a eulogy for net neutrality. The fight has just begun.

We thank every Senator who has already voted for net neutrality, and we thank every American who has worked toward that goal. Now let us redouble our efforts, because we have to turn this into a campaign issue in 2018 that matches all of the other issues that are driving the agenda of our country.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as we head into Memorial Day weekend and the summer driving season, gas prices are up nearly 25 percent since President Trump took office. That means American consumers are paying $350 more per year to fill up under President Trump, and here is why:

No. 1, President Trump's incoherent foreign policy has been exacerbating the geopolitical risk premium on oil prices and driving them up, and President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Iran deal is further roiling oil markets. Because of these actions that increase risks around the world, gas prices could keep going up even more this summer. I call this the ``Trump oil risk tax,'' and its impacts are being felt right now.

The oil risk tax completely wipes out any tax savings from the Republican tax scam for the poorest Americans. The lowest 40 percent of earners are projected to get roughly $200 this year from the GOP tax plan. That is eliminated, obviously, by the $350 more they are paying now to gas up thanks to Donald Trump's policies.

Donald Trump loves having his name on things--towers, steak, universities. Now his name is associated with higher gas prices for every American family.

Reason No. 2, while consumers are getting tipped upside down at the gasoline pumps, oil companies are benefiting from a $25 billion tax cut this year alone from the GOP tax scam. That is on top of the $7 billion to $8 billion a year they get in permanent tax breaks and also free drilling loopholes. All of that is on top of the $25 billion of tax breaks this year alone. Is Big Oil using those GOP tax giveaways to help drivers across America? Nope. They are using it to buy back tens of billions of dollars' worth of their own stock. Big oil companies are using this tax windfall to pump up their own profits rather than to help consumers at the pump.

Reason No. 3, the United States is exporting historic amounts of American oil, even while we remain dependent on OPEC and the Middle East. Exporting U.S. oil is only a further giveaway to Big Oil. We are now exporting more than 2.5 million barrels a day of U.S. crude overseas, even while we are still forced to import that exact same amount--2.5 million barrels a day--from OPEC and the Middle East, and we are sending our oil overseas to benefit foreign nations like China, which is getting one-quarter of U.S. oil exports.

Why would we send our oil overseas instead of keeping it here to help our consumers and our security? Well, because Big Oil stands to see $500 billion in new revenue over the next 20 years as a result of U.S. oil exports because they can charge more for U.S. oil overseas. They make more money if they sell it to foreigners than if they sell it to U.S. citizens--U.S. consumers. Exporting American crude means our consumers are more vulnerable to supply shops and more closely tied to rising international prices.

Reason No. 4, OPEC and Russia are colluding to manipulate oil markets. In response to the millions of barrels a day of U.S. oil we are exporting, OPEC, Russia, and other nations are working together to simply cut their production by an equal amount. You don't need to be Robert Mueller to know collusion is going on between Russia and OPEC to boost oil prices and hurt American consumers at the pump as they are getting ready for the Memorial Day weekend.

That is why I introduced the OPEC Accountability Act. This legislation would require President Trump to negotiate with OPEC, with Russia, and other nations to put an end to this cartel that is manipulating markets and harming American consumers. This legislation would further direct our Trade Representative to take action against any country in the cartel that refuses to stop conspiring to raise prices.

President Trump is doing nothing to hold OPEC and Russia accountable. It is time for him to immediately begin negotiations with this cartel to put an end to their manipulation of the oil markets of the world but also of the United States of America.

Reason No. 5, the Trump administration is attacking fuel economy standards that help consumers and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The historic fuel economy emissions standard of 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025 that is currently on the books is projected to save consumers more than $1 trillion at the pump. They will reduce our consumption of oil by 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2030. That is how much oil we import from OPEC every single day. Why would the Trump administration seek to eliminate all of the increases in fuel economy standards for the vehicles we drive if they know that it will back out all of that imported oil from the Middle East? You don't have to be a detective to figure this out. They would do it at the behest of the big oil companies, the big auto companies, and the Trump administration so that they can put these

fuel economy standards in their crosshairs.

The Trump administration is in the process of making a U-turn and putting us in reverse on these critical fuel economy emissions standards. That will mean that consumers will pay even more at the pump, and it will mean that we will be even more reliant on oil from OPEC and other foreign nations and unstable regions around the world.

President Trump likes to tout American energy dominance, but thanks to his policies, it is high gasoline prices that are dominating American consumers' pocketbooks. President Trump says his agenda is ``America First,'' but the policies he and the Republicans are pursuing are putting Big Oil, OPEC, Russia, and China first and American consumers last. It is time for this to end. It is time for us, in our country, to have a debate about this oil agenda.

The President always says that he wants to have an agenda that is ``all of the above''--meaning every energy source--but when you examine it very closely, it just comes down to oil above all. We are seeing that, and the consumers are paying the price at the pump. We need to ensure that everyone in our country understands who is responsible, whose name is on this price increase, and that name is Donald J. Trump. They are his oil policies. It is his foreign policy that is creating this problem for every consumer as we head into the Memorial Day weekend and as we continue throughout the summer and into the rest of this year and next year.

It is a very important issue for every American. They are going to feel it in their pocketbooks because the tax break that the President is touting is going to be completely wiped out by the high energy prices that will go right to the Koch brothers, right to Big Oil, and right to OPEC.

If the President wants to do something about this, he should call up his pals, the Saudi Arabians. He should call up his pals in the United Arab Emirates. He should call up his pals in the big oil companies and bring them in and tell them that he wants this to end, that he wants there to be lower oil prices, that he does not want them to be taking advantage of this tight American marketplace as we export 2.5 million barrels a day.

It is time for us to begin to understand what is happening to our economy. Ultimately, it is not just going to be drivers at the pump. It is going to be businesses. It is going to be large and small who are going to be impacted by this, and it is ultimately going to have a supreme, negative impact on our economy--not for the oil companies but for anyone else who purchases this oil, which is everyone.

Thank you for the time.

I yield back.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today is a monumental day. Today is the day the U.S. Senate votes on the future of the internet, the most powerful platform for commerce and communications in the history of the planet. Today, we show the American people who sides with them and who sides with the powerful special interests and corporate donors who are thriving under this administration.

Today, we vote on my Congressional Review Act resolution to save net neutrality. Net neutrality may sound complicated, but it is actually very simple. After you pay your monthly internet bill, you should be able to access all content on the web at the same speed--no slowing down certain websites, no blocking websites, and no charging you more to exercise your 21st century right to access the internet. It is as simple as that.

If that sounds like common sense, you are not alone. In fact, according to a recent poll, 86 percent of Americans support net neutrality. This isn't a partisan issue; 82 percent of Republicans support net neutrality.

Every day, we are told that this country is more divided than ever, that our differences outnumber our similarities. Well, the American people agree on net neutrality. They agree that the internet is for everyone. They agree that we cannot afford to blindly trust a few internet service providers--AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Charter--to put consumers first. Yet, once again, the Trump administration has neglected the will of everyday Americans and given a gift to the rich and the powerful.

In December, the Trump Federal Communications Commission eliminated the very rules that prevent your internet service provider from indiscriminately charging more for internet fast lanes, slowing down websites, blocking websites, and making it harder and maybe even impossible for entrepreneurs, job creators, and small businesses--the lifeblood of the American economy--to connect to the internet.

The Trump Federal Communications Commission picked clear winners and losers when it repealed net neutrality. When the Federal Communications Commission decision takes effect on June 11, Big Telecom will have new tools to inflate profits, but Americans and small businesses that use the internet to do their jobs, communicate with each other, and participate in civic life will be left defenseless.

Don't be fooled by the army of lobbyists marching the Halls of Congress on behalf of the big internet service providers. They say that we don't need these rules because the internet service providers will self-regulate. Blocking, throttling, paid prioritization--these harms are alarmist and hypothetical, they say. Well, that simply is not the case. These practices are very real, and in a world without net neutrality, they may become the new normal. But don't just take my word for it. Let's look at the facts.

In 2007, an Associated Press investigation found that Comcast was blocking or severely slowing down BitTorrent, a website that allowed consumers to share video, music, and video game files. From 2007 to 2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing services from using AT&T's wireless network to encourage users to purchase more voice minutes. In 2011, Verizon blocked Google Wallet to protect a competing service it had a financial stake in developing and promoting.

There is no shortage of evidence that we need clear and enforceable rules of the road so that these discriminatory practices do not become commonplace schemes that consumers and small businesses must suffer through without any options for recourse.

This isn't the first time Congress has had to step in to protect the integrity of the marketplace. In the 1800s, we didn't have the information superhighway. We had railroads. American farmers used trains to deliver their products to consumers, and powerful railroad trusts started charging certain farmers higher rates to move their goods. Congress stepped in and passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to put a stop to this price discrimination.

Today, we have left the steam engine era, and we have moved into the search engine era. Internet service providers are the 21st century trusts controlling the channels of commerce. And in 2018, many American job creators aren't moving alfalfa seeds; they are moving kernels of ideas for the next big app, the next new startup.

Net neutrality is about continuing the American tradition of promoting competition and providing the level economic playing field we need to continue to prosper in this rapidly changing global economy. But net neutrality isn't just an economic issue; it is also central to the health of our democracy.

Over the past several months and years, Americans all over the country from all walks of life have mobilized and marched, fighting for progress and change--Black Lives Matter, the Women's March, the ``me too.'' movement, high school students demanding gun control, teachers calling for fair pay. Today citizens of all walks of life are carrying the torch of American activism, and they are doing it online.

In 2018, this is how the American people are organizing. This is how the American people are doing the indispensable work of an active citizenry. This is how the American people are speaking truth to power.

Asking individuals to pay extra to speak out for what they believe in, allowing companies to stifle or even block access to certain ideas--that isn't who we are as a country. It isn't consistent with the values of nondiscrimination. Net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time, and the well-being of our precious democracy depends on the public having equal, unfettered access to the internet.

Today, the U.S. Senate will show its true colors. It will either heed the calls of thousands of small businesses that have written in support of this Congressional Review Act resolution and the millions of Americans who have sent letters, posted tweets, and made calls defending net neutrality or the Senate will give another present to the rich and the powerful.

The Senate will either follow the example of Governors, State legislators, and attorneys general all over the country who are fighting to save the internet as we know it or it will let President Trump, once again, break his campaign promise of putting average Americans ahead of swampy special interests. It will either stand up for the principles that have allowed the U.S. internet economy to become the envy of the world or it will make another unforced error that threatens our long-term competitiveness.

I urge my colleagues to make the decision our constituents--with one voice--overwhelmingly are asking us to make. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this Congressional Review Act resolution to restore net neutrality, to restore the principle of nondiscrimination, to restore the protections for small startups, for individuals in our country so that they cannot be discriminated against online.

This is net neutrality day here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Today is the day of reckoning, when the Trump Federal Communications Commission is going to have their act judged by the U.S. Senate. My hope is that before the end of this day, the Senate will vote to overturn the Trump FCC and restore net neutrality, restore the principle of nondiscrimination, restore the principle of equality, restore the principle that small software and internet startups are given the same protections that the biggest companies in our country are provided.

Today is the day. Net neutrality is the vote that will determine whether we are going to give those protections to every American.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I wanted to follow up on that very important point that the Senator was making, which is that these big companies are all saying: You don't have to worry because we don't have any intention of discriminating.

Then we say: Well, that is what net neutrality says, that you should not discriminate, that you should treat everybody equally.

Then they turn around and say: Oh, you can trust us, but take the rules off the books that we say that we agree with and that we are going to abide by.

From my perspective, they are trying to have it both ways, but the way they really want to have it is with no rules at all. Then, they will be free to go back to displaying conduct which we know, in the past, they have engaged in.

Does the Senator agree with that assessment?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator because, I think, that is what he identified 12 years ago when he introduced a net neutrality bill here in the Senate and what I had identified over in the House. We worked together on it at that time, and the need just continues, especially as we get deeper and deeper into this internet era. It is almost like oxygen for somebody now, especially for young people, young entrepreneurs. They need to know that they can gain access to the web in order to start up their new software or internet companies, but they shouldn't have to first raise money to pay exorbitant fees to the big broadband companies. First, they should be free to innovate and not worry that they be can be discriminated against.

Whether it is in Portland, OR, or in Springfield, MA, it is the same principle for which we have been trying to stand up for all of these years. It was the law until December of 2017, when Ajit Pai and the Trump FCC took it off the books. That is what the debate is about today: Are we going to put those rules, those nondiscriminatory rules, back on the books?

Mr. President, by the way, whether it is Burns or the Berkshires, there are rural parts in every State. We have them, as well, in Massachusetts. They have the same right of access to a free, unfettered internet as do the people who live in Cambridge, MA, or in Portland, OR. The rural parts in every State are entitled to it. The rural businesses, the farmers should all be able to rely upon--have a guarantee--its being free, open, and that they are not going to be discriminated against.

That is why I wanted to get up and thank the Senator for his historic leadership on this issue. He was there at the dawn of this whole era, and he continues to ensure that the internet is infused with the values that, I think, our Nation wants to have reflected.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as we conclude this part of the debate, I will just take note of the fact that the American Association of Retired People today has come out in favor of the open internet order, which is the restoring of net neutrality principles, which follows on what the former head of the Gray Panthers, the Senator from the State of Oregon, Mr. Wyden, raised today--the need to ensure that everyone gets the full protection of net neutrality rules.

The votes we are about to cast are nothing short of the most consequential votes on the internet in the history of this body. We will take the important step to reaffirm the principles of nondiscrimination online or we will allow a few companies to control how we access the internet. We will stand up for the small app developer with a bright idea to change the world or we give another gift to the powerful corporate interests and their lobbyists in the District of Columbia. We will take a stand to protect our online economy or we will say goodbye to the internet as we know it.

In 2018, essentially every company is an internet company. In my State of Massachusetts and in every other State, tech underpins the economy of the United States today. In 2017, almost half of all venture capital in the United States was invested into internet and software startups. That is over $34 billion.

This is working. This is capitalism at its best. This is small business being able to receive the capital it needs in order to start new companies in our country. Small businesses are the ones that hire new people who do innovation. That is what the venture capital industry is indicating by pouring money into these smaller companies under a regime of net neutrality.

So we found the secret recipe. When we take a democratized platform, with endless opportunity for communication, and add American ingenuity, the result is economic growth and innovation. What we are doing is working. With net neutrality protections in place, there is no problem that needs fixing.

This fight began when Senator Wyden and I introduced net neutrality as legislation back more than a decade ago. I introduced it, Senator Wyden introduced it, because we knew then the internet was the most powerful and pervasive platform in the history of the world. Since then, the importance of the internet has skyrocketed, and the movement to protect it has followed suit. Millions of Americans are raising their voices for net neutrality because they know the power of the internet. They know it can categorize staggering commercial growth, they know it can create endless connections, and they know it can change the course of civilization in fractions of a second.

A vote against net neutrality is a vote to change the fundamental character of the internet. A vote for net neutrality is a vote for America's future. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution.

Madam President, I move to proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 406, S.J. Res. 52.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Thune's bill is problematic both substantively and procedurally. There have been no committee hearings on his proposal, and it is not yet ripe for consideration here on the Senate floor. As a result, I object.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank all of my colleagues here today. This has been a very important debate to have on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is a debate over whether we are going to continue to have a free and open internet. This vote is a test of the U.S. Senate, and the American people are watching very closely.

This vote is about small businesses, librarians, schoolteachers, innovators, social advocates, YouTubers, college students, and millions of other Americans who have spoken with one voice to say: Access to the internet is our right, and we will not sit idly by while this administration stomps on that right.

This vote is our moment to show our constituents that the U.S. Senate can break through the partisanship and break past the powerful outside influences to do the right thing--the right thing for our economy, the right thing for our democracy, the right thing for our consumers, and the right thing for our future.

This is common sense to Americans around the country, with the only exception being telecom lobbyists and lawyers inside the beltway. How do I know? Because 86 percent of all Americans in polling agree that net neutrality should stay on the books as the law of the United States.

The public is telling us loudly and clearly to vote for this resolution. They are telling us they don't trust their internet service provider to show up on time for a customer service appointment at their house, so they certainly don't trust them to put consumers ahead of profits.

They are telling us that once they pay their internet bill, they expect fair access to the internet. They are telling us they are sick of the special interests getting their way while the rest of us get the short end of the stick.

So I ask each and every one of my colleagues today to heed the calls of the American people to keep the internet open, to keep the principle of nondiscrimination at the heart of what the internet has been and must continue to be, not just for the most powerful voices but for those who have the smallest voices inside of our society. That includes entrepreneurs who just last year received half of all venture capital in the United States which went to software and internet startups. That is what we need. We need to understand how this incredibly chaotic entrepreneurial system in our country works, and at the heart of it is net neutrality.

Just 2 weeks ago, in Massachusetts, I had a meeting with 500 people on net neutrality. I invited Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the worldwide web.

Tim Berners-Lee was selected by Time magazine as one of the 20 greatest thinkers, scientists, and innovators of the 20th century. Who else was on the list with him? Sigmund Freud, Edison, Henry Ford.

Tim Berners-Lee is the inventor of the worldwide web, the organizing principle of the web. What he said is, the principles of nondiscrimination are baked into the internet. It was his intent to have it work that way so there could be no discrimination. What we are talking about is a fundamental change. The largest companies now want to implement fundamental change in order for them to ensure that competitors cannot compete as well as they could if they could not be discriminated against--that consumers have the protections they need so they are not harmed, and so this innovation economy can continue to unleash itself for the benefit of the United States, so we are, No. 1, looking over our shoulders at Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the world.

The internet and its success is a story about the United States being No. 1, not any individual company, and certainly not a small handful of broadband companies. That is why the rest of the world envies what we have in our country, this incredible engine of innovation which has created millions of new jobs since the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed, since this digital revolution was unleashed. We must keep these principles intact.

That is what we are debating here today on the floor of the United States Senate. We are debating what the principles should be for this organizing principle of our country for the 21st century, which is the internet. From my perspective, the only way in which every American, every entrepreneur, every new idea is going to have a shot at helping to make our country better is if net neutrality stays on the books.

So this is a defining vote, the most important vote that we are going to have in this generation, on the internet. The whole country is watching. Eighty-six percent of all voters support net neutrality, 82 percent of all Republicans support net neutrality. If it is not broke, don't fix it. It is working, and it works for the smallest voices and for the largest voices. What these huge internet companies, the internet service providers, want to do is change the rules, tilt the playing field.

It was a long route to get to this era. We had one telephone company, one cable company, monopolies going into people's homes. It took a lot to get away from that era so that smaller voices, newer voices could be heard. When that happened, it unleashed trillions of dollars of private-sector investment the software and internet companies, these innovators, were now able to gain access to. They could have done it if the rules made it possible before we changed the laws in the 1990s. But since then, they have--and they have reinvented, not just the United States of America, but they have reinvented the whole world. There is a vocabulary which has been created since 1996, words that now everyone thinks are common: Google, Amazon, E-Bay, Hulu, You Tube. They didn't exist. They didn't have a role in our society. We had to change the rules in order to make it possible for them. There is a whole new generations of companies whose names we do not know yet, but because of net neutrality they will be known. They will be the job creators for the next several decades in our country.

So I thank all Members who participated in this debate. There won't be a more important one that we have, because it goes right to the heart of our identity as a free and open society. I urge my fellow Senators to vote yes on my Congressional Review Act resolution to restore the net neutrality rules to the books.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today, it is my privilege to honor the work and achievements of Dr. T. Berry Brazelton, who dedicated his life to understanding the development of infants and young children and improving their lives, on what would have been his 100th birthday. Dr. Brazelton passed away on March 13, 2018, in Barnstable, MA.

Known as America's pediatrician, Dr. Brazelton's pioneering work in child development changed earlier concepts that parenting needed to be a rigid process. In addition to the clinical aspects of his work as a practicing pediatrician, he was also a scientist who observed, analyzed, and learned about the nature of babies and children and their interactions with their parents. His observations led to newfound understandings of how infants develop, including the importance of the parent-child relationship during the first stages of life. Dr. Brazelton also developed strong connections to the parents of the children with whom he worked. He was among the first researchers

who used video to observe parent-infant interactions, and his teachings provided parents with the security and skills they needed to understand their babies. Throughout his career, Dr. Brazelton worked with tens of thousands of parents and children, published more than 30 books on pediatrics and child development, and founded the Brazelton Touchpoints Center at Boston Children's Hospital.

Dr. Brazelton's work and influence extended past the research lab and his pediatric practice. He created Touchpoints, professional training programs that equip family-facing providers with the skills they need to empower parents and families through research-informed family engagement practice. Dr. Brazelton and I shared a commitment to advancing the health and safety of children, and his approach to child wellness helped to inspire much of my work on this critical issue. Dr. Brazelton was credited for putting the practice of natural childbirth and breastfeeding back at the forefront of childrearing practices. His research contributed to the removal of lead from gasoline in the United States, the enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and many more policies aimed at expanding the rights of children.

Dr. Brazelton was more than just a clinician and scientist. His constant curiosity and charisma allowed him to cross many disciplines. He was a writer, a mentor, and a lover of the arts. He was loved by his wife, the late Christina Lowell Brazelton, and is survived by his children, Christina, Catherine, Pauline, and Thomas III, and his seven grandchildren.

Dr. Brazelton's research and findings garnered him many accolades and awards, including the Presidential Citizens Medal in 2013. However, the advances he made in science's understanding of the importance of the first years of life; the improvements in clinical care of infants, young children, and their parents; and the policies based on his scientific contributions to promote healthy child and family development will leave the biggest mark. We have lost a champion and visionary, but his legacy will live on in the hearts of many, and his work will continue to influence advancements in child development.

Mr. President, to you and all of my colleagues on the floor this afternoon, we are about to have a huge debate in this country. We are taking to the floor as a chorus of Americans across the Nation are going to go to the phones and their devices to support our principle of net neutrality in this country.

We are speaking out because the American people know the internet is the most powerful platform for commerce and communications in the history of the planet. They know the internet is for everyone and was invented with the guiding principle of nondiscrimination. The internet is designed to democratize access to information, to opportunity. They know the health of our economy, our civic life, our educational system, and so many other parts of today's American experience all depend on the internet being free and open to everyone, not just those who can afford Big Telecom's price of admission. They know strong, clear, and enforceable net neutrality rules are the only way to protect the internet as we know it. That is why an overwhelming 86 percent of Americans oppose the Federal Communications Commission's decision last December to repeal net neutrality rules.

Outside of Washington, this isn't a partisan issue at all. In fact, 82 percent of Republicans oppose the net neutrality repeal. In a time when we hear so much about what divides us and how we differ, net neutrality is something nearly all Americans agree on. It should be a bipartisan bright spot. Yet, in December, the Trump administration eliminated the very rules that prevent your internet service provider-- Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Charter, and others--from indiscriminately charging more for internet fast lanes, slowing down websites, blocking websites, and making it harder and maybe even impossible for inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses--the lifeblood of the American economy--to connect to the internet.

Why did they do this? The reason is simple. The Trump administration, time and again, sides with the rich and the powerful first and consumers last. From the GOP tax scam to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, to rolling back fuel economy standards, and to net neutrality, this administration has repeatedly ignored the needs of everyday American families. A free and open internet means an internet free from corporate control and open to anyone who wants to connect, communicate, or innovate.

That is why, today, the 49 Members of the Senate Democratic caucus are officially filing this discharge petition to force a vote on my Congressional Review Act resolution, which will put net neutrality back on the books as the rule of law for the United States. This resolution would fully restore the rules that ensure Americans aren't subject to higher prices, slower internet trafficking, and even blocked websites because the big internet service providers want to pump up their profits.

How does all of this work? First, my CRA resolution will reinstate the rule against blocking. For example, without this protection, AT&T could stop you from visiting your favorite streaming platform, so your only option is their DIRECTV NOW service. Verizon could prohibit you from using Skype, so you have to use their phone service. That is bad for competition and innovation, and it is very bad for consumers.

Second, my CRA--Congressional Review Act--resolution will restore the rule against throttling. Without this protection, broadband companies could slow down any website they want. If activists take to Twitter to share stories about unfair labor practices at an internet service provider, for example, that company could slow down the social media platform to protect its public image and limit the spread of information. Imagine what that could do during a Trump administration that is stifling science, undermining law enforcement, and questioning intelligence. The prospects are Orwellian.

Third, my Congressional Review Act resolution will restore the rule prohibiting paid prioritization. Without this rule, internet providers could charge large established websites for access to an internet fast lane--meaning those websites would load quicker, while websites that can't afford the internet ``E-ZPass'' will load at a bumper-to-bumper pace. Small businesses that rely on fast internet service would be dwarfed by corporate competitors who could afford the faster service. This would spell doom for mom-and-pop businesses that are the backbone of our communities.

Finally, my Congressional Review Act will restore the forward-looking general conduct rule. When the FCC eliminated this guideline, it removed protection against future harms, such as arbitrary data caps and other discriminatory behavior by internet service providers. So don't be fooled by the voices that say this is all doom and gloom and that the internet service providers would never let this happen. Mark my words, without net neutrality, these are not alarmist and hypothetical harms--they are very real. In a world without net neutrality, they very well may become the new normal.

This is a historic moment. We are approaching the most important vote for the internet in the history of the Senate. Should the Senate resolution pass, it will be the first time in more than a decade a minority party-sponsored Congressional Review Act resolution will have overturned a majority party administration's rule. We can and should put President Trump on notice. Countless Americans have called and emailed Congress to express support for net neutrality and for my CRA resolution.

All one has to do is look at the internet today--to this ``red alert for net neutrality'' that is on dozens and dozens and dozens of companies' websites all across our country. These are smaller companies, not the big companies that are all saying the same thing, which is that they need net neutrality, that they need to be protected, that they don't want to have the large companies being able to act in a discriminatory way. Those companies--Reddit, TripAdvisor, Etsy, Vimeo, Tumblr, match.com, and so many others--all speak with one voice. They are saying: Do not allow discriminatory practices to be made legal. Put the old net neutrality rules back on the books. They were working.

Activity in support of net neutrality at the State level has also been remarkable in that Governors in five States have issued executive orders; attorneys general in 23 States have filed lawsuits; 27 State legislatures are working on legislation to protect net neutrality.

We all know that in 2018, access to a free and open internet is not just a privilege, it is a right. I knew that back in 2006, when I introduced the very first net neutrality legislation in the House of Representatives. Ron Wyden knew the very same thing when he introduced the same legislation in the Senate. It is a debate that has been

taking place in our country now for an internet generation, going back 12, 13 years. It is what binds the millennials, teachers, librarians, entrepreneurs, medical professionals, social advocates, generations X, Y, and Z--all of these groups that are up in arms because the future of the internet is at stake.

To my colleagues across the aisle, I encourage them to seize this opportunity and stand with the American people, who overwhelmingly support net neutrality. Again, 86 percent of all Americans--82 percent of all Republicans across the country--support net neutrality.

By passing this resolution, we send a clear message to American families that we support them, not President Trump's special interest agenda. This is the issue of whether we are going to empower ordinary families and ordinary small businesses to be given the protections they need.

The American people are watching closely. They are paying attention to who is fighting for them and who is sitting on the sidelines, to who is listening and who is ignoring the public's demands. This vote is coming, and when it does, it will put a magnifying glass on Congress. It will be crystal clear who is protecting corporate buddies and who is fighting for everyday Americans.

The Senate has a job to do. I urge my colleagues to join this movement and stand on the right side of history. In the 20th century, the rural electrification process connected huge parts of our country to the benefits of electricity. It raised living standards. It expanded educational opportunities. It transformed society. That is what a free and open internet is doing for our country in the 21st century--job creation, small business development, social justice, distance education. Every day, the lives of Americans are transformed for the better because they can access this diverse, dynamic, democratic platform where history is made every single day.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this Congressional Review Act resolution to restore net neutrality.

I will now file this discharge petition with the clerk of the Senate so we can begin the process of having this historic debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

I thank all of my colleagues who are going to participate in this discussion this afternoon. It begins at least 1 week of full discussion on the Senate floor and in our country on this critical issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her incredible leadership on this issue. I know she had a huge forum with small businesses up in New Hampshire that reflected the need to ensure that we had an open and free internet.

As we talk about net neutrality, I think many people wonder: What does that mean? What does ``net neutrality'' mean exactly? Well, the way to think about it is, instead of saying the words ``net neutrality,'' you say the word ``nondiscrimination,'' because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about whether you are an individual or you are a small firm and you are using the internet in order to have your voice heard, in order to start up a business and that you are not discriminated against just because you are a small voice; that you are not discriminated against because you are not some huge corporation; that, in this internet era, you are important and you can't be discriminated against. That is what this debate is all about.

Now, how does that reflect the state of commerce online in America today? Well, for example, last year in the United States--this is an incredible number--half of all venture capital in America went to internet and software startups or internet and software companies in their beginning stages. Think about that. That is half of all venture capital. Who gets that money? Well, they are newer people, newer ideas, and newer job creators--the people who have transformed our country over the last 20 years online. Those are the people who get access to venture capital in a regime where net neutrality is the law of our country.

Now, at the same time, the big broadband companies have been able to invest tens of billions of dollars in the upgrade of their infrastructure. So it is not as though we are talking about the big companies getting it all or the little companies getting it all. They are both doing great under the existing formula, but the tens of thousands of smaller internet-based companies across this country are the ones who are actually creating the jobs. They are the ones that are hiring the new people. They are the ones who need the new real estate-- the 1,000 square feet, the 5,000 square feet, up to 25,000 square feet, and up to 1 million square feet, ultimately.

That is where we are, for example, with Wayfair, up in Massachusetts, which is a company from which you purchase furniture online. It started very small, and now it needs hundreds of thousands of square feet of space.

The same thing is true for TripAdvisor, up in Massachusetts. It started very small, and now it needs hundreds of thousands of square feet of space in order to hire all of their employees. That is what happens when you have an open internet. That is what happens when smaller companies and new companies online can raise the capital they need in order to finance their idea, in order to hire people who will advance this company's agenda across all 320 million people in the United States and, ultimately, for many of them, across the planet. You have to start somewhere, and the only way in which it really works is if net neutrality--if nondiscrimination--is the principle.

So that is what we are going to be debating over the next week here on the Senate floor. It is this fundamental issue of access to capital for the smallest companies and not to allow five companies--the biggest companies--to determine who gets access. The principle of net neutrality--the principle of openness--has worked. We now have a whole vocabulary in our country consisting of the names of companies that no one knew 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago. Those are the companies that are rising up and saying they want net neutrality to be protected here today.

In addition to that, we have dozens of other groups, the free press, and others who are all saying that we need it to advance democracy as well. We want the smallest individual to know that their voice can never be stifled, that their voice can never be cut off. That is what this debate is all about. That is why the Members are out here on the floor. We are trying to reflect the 86 percent of Americans who support net neutrality. I know that is why Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota is here.

At this point, Mr. President, I yield the floor.