[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 51 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1942-S1955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 34, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 34) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal
Communications Commission relating to ``Protecting the
Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other
Telecommunications Services.''
[[Page S1943]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). If no one yields time, time will
be charged equally.
The Senator from Maryland.
End Racial and Religious Profiling Act
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that I
have introduced. I have introduced it in prior Congresses. But I think
it is particularly important in this Congress. It is the End Racial and
Religious Profiling Act of 2017. I am proud to have many of my
colleagues as cosponsors of this legislation, including Senators
Baldwin, Blumenthal, Booker, Brown, Cantwell, Coons, Duckworth, Durbin,
Feinstein, Franken, Gillibrand, Harris, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine,
Markey, Menendez, Merkley, Murphy, Murray, Sanders, Stabenow, Udall,
Van Hollen, Wyden, and Warren.
In the House of Representatives, the bill's principal sponsor is
Congressman Conyers. It is needed now more than ever before. I say that
for many reasons, one of which is that we have seen a large increase in
hate crimes in our community. Yesterday I was on the phone with a
father from Harford County, MD, whose son was the victim of a hate
episode related to that person's religion and ethnic background.
We have seen in our community a large increase in hate crimes against
the Jewish community. There have been a lot of bomb threats that have
been called into Jewish schools and to the Jewish Community Centers. We
have seen physical attacks and the desecration of cemeteries. So the
minority community feels threatened.
That has been escalating as a result of the actions of our President
and his Executive orders. The Executive orders--he has issued two now
that are dealing with the immigrant community--do raise the temperature
in our community and the concern in our community that people are being
threatened because of their religion, threatened because of their
ethnic background, threatened because of their status as part of an
immigrant community.
All of that has added to the concerns in America today. The
legislation that I have introduced would make it illegal for
discriminatory policing--for police to use as an indicator for their
actions a person's race, religion, or ethnic background.
Discriminatory policing is against our values. Quite frankly, it is
not what we stand for as a nation. We don't target people because of
their religion. I will always remember that shortly after the Trayvon
episode, I met with community activists in Baltimore. Many told me
examples of how they were with their parents when the police stopped
them randomly, for no reason at all, but solely because of the person's
race and how communities felt threatened as a result of it.
It is not what we stand for as a nation. It turns communities against
police, rather than working with the police. It is a waste of
resources. It does not work. It can be deadly as we have seen in too
many communities in our Nation. In my own city of Baltimore, we had the
episode concerning Freddie Gray, who died in police custody.
I went to Sandtown, where Freddie Gray came from, shortly after that
episode and met with the community, and I heard comparable stories
about how good community activists felt like they were betraying their
community if they worked with the local police, because they said the
system was just stacked against their community and their race.
So let me, if I might, quote from the Department of Justice report on
the Freddie Gray case. Our congressional delegation asked for a pattern
or practice investigation. In part of that investigation, they came out
with this finding:
There is overwhelming statistical evidence of racial
disparities in Baltimore Police Department's (BPD's) stops,
searches, and arrests. . . . BPD officers subject African-
Americans to a disproportionate number of pedestrian and
vehicles stops on Baltimore streets and search African-
Americans disproportionately during these stops. . . . The
policing practices that cause the racial disparities in BPD's
stops, searches, and arrests, along with evidence suggesting
intentional discrimination against African-Americans,
undermine the community trust that is central to effective
policing. . . . Indeed, we heard from many community members
who were reluctant to engage with the officers because of
their belief that the Department treats African-Americans
unfairly. . . . These concerns were acknowledged by BPD
leadership and officers, who explained that lack of trust--
particularly in many of Baltimore's African-American
communities--inhibit officers' efforts to build relationships
that are a key component of effective policing. . . .
I say that because racial profiling--discriminatory profiling--is
ineffective and is counterproductive. It actually makes communities
less safe. I have the honor of being the Special Representative for
Anti-Semitism, Racism and Intolerance in the OSCE, or the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly.
In that capacity, I have identified four major areas of concern
within the 57 countries that represent the OSCE, including the United
States. Those priorities are discriminatory actions against the Muslim
community, the rise of anti-Semitism, the concerns of discrimination
against the immigrant community, and also the concerns on
discriminatory policing.
Discriminatory policing is very much engaged in our concerns about
the rise of anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance. Now, I want to make
it clear: The overwhelming majority of people in law enforcement are
good people. They are professionals. They are trying to do their job.
They are against racial profiling. But we need to protect the
professionalism within the police departments and establish a national
policy against racial profiling.
My legislation is supported by over 1,150 organizations. Let me just,
if I might, mention a couple of those, by quoting their leaders. Wade
Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, who supports this legislation said:
Discriminatory profiling is wrong, fosters distrust between
law enforcement and the communities they serve and puts
public safety at risk. Racial profiling infringes on civil
liberties and squanders resources that should be used instead
to catch criminal perpetrators. We urge his colleagues to
join Senator Cardin and stand for effective law enforcement
by supporting [this legislation].
Jennifer Bellamy, the ACLU legislative counsel, who also supports
this legislation, said:
For centuries, discriminatory profiling practices have
harmed communities of color. It is not enough to be `against'
racism and racial profiling, we need national leaders to end
discriminatory practices. We know that profiling of any kind
is ineffective and diverts law enforcement's time, money, and
energy away from actual threats. The time is now to end
racial profiling once and for all.
Then, lastly, Hilary Shelton, the director of the NAACP Washington
Bureau and the senior vice president for policy and advocacy said:
This important legislation takes concrete steps to put an
end to the insidious practice of profiling individuals by
federal, state and local levels based on physical attributes
or an individual's religion. It is difficult for our faith in
the American criminal justice system not to be challenged
when we cannot walk down the street, drive down an
interstate, go through an airport, or even enter into our own
homes without being stopped merely because of the color of
our skin, who we are perceived to be, or what we choose to
wear.
I could mention many of the other groups and many other quotes. This
legislation is pretty straightforward. It establishes a national
uniform standard against discriminatory profiling at all levels of law
enforcement--State, local Federal.
For example, it tells us that we can't use as descriptors a person's
race. We can do so when we are using it to describe a particular crime,
but not as a predictor of future crimes. Let me close by quoting from
Ron Davis, the former police chief of East Palo Alto, CA, where he
said:
[T]here exists no national, standardized definition for
racial profiling that prohibits all uses of race, national
origin, and religion, except when describing a person.
Consequently, many state and local policies define racial
profiling as using race as the ``sole'' basis for a stop or
any police action. This definition is misleading in that it
suggests using race as a factor for anything other than a
description is justified, which it is not. Simply put,
race is a descriptor not a predictor. To use race along
with other salient descriptors when describing someone who
just committed a crime is appropriate.
That is what this legislation does. It establishes a national
definition. It prohibits it in any form of policing in our country. It
provides for training. It provides Federal grants for best practices.
It requires the Attorney General
[[Page S1944]]
to issue reports. It is legislation that is needed in our country.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder adopted it at the national level,
and he said:
In this Nation, security and liberty are--at their best--
partners, not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for
all. . . . In this Nation, the document that sets forth the
supreme law of the land--the Constitution--is meant to
empower, not exclude. . . . Racial profiling is wrong. It can
leave a lasting scar on communities and individuals. And it
is, quite simply, bad policing--whatever city, whatever
state.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees ``equal
protection of the laws'' to all Americans. Racial and discriminatory
profiling is abhorrent to those principles, and it should be ended once
and for all.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
TrumpCare
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to start by addressing the news
last night that Republican leaders have decided to try to make their
awful TrumpCare legislation even worse. TrumpCare wasn't enough of a
giveaway to insurance companies, and it didn't do enough harm to women,
seniors, and people with preexisting conditions, so Republican leaders
decided to double down in efforts to appeal to their extreme
conservative base.
They are now claiming that they can take away essential health
benefits like maternity care, mental health care, and preexisting
conditions through the reconciliation process, but here are the facts:
Republican leaders know, just as Democrats do, that measures to take
away these critically important protections cannot survive the
reconciliation process and could never get 60 votes in the Senate. They
are simply trying to sell conservatives a bill of goods today in the
rush to jam this through, but the more they scramble, the more harmful
this bill gets for patients and families and the worse it will be for
any House Republican who will be held accountable for their votes on
it.
As we all know, today marks 7 years since the Affordable Care Act was
signed into law. While some here in Congress may view this as an ideal
opportunity to ram through a reckless, harmful repeal of the law, I,
for one, think about today a little differently.
I remember 7 years ago, standing with a young constituent of mine
from Seattle, Marci Owens, as we watched President Obama sign the
Affordable Care Act into law. I had met Marci when she was about 11
years old, in the midst of some of the most heated moments of the
healthcare reform debate, and to this day, I will never forget the
story she told me about her mom, who all of a sudden had become sick,
was forced to miss work, and because of that, she lost her job and lost
her health insurance. Ultimately, because she wasn't even able to see a
doctor or get any care, she died as a result of her illness.
I took that story with me, along with countless other stories of
families unable to access care, pay for medication, or see a doctor. I
used them as motivation as my colleagues and I worked tirelessly to
pass the Affordable Care Act.
Just last month, I was proud to have Marci, who is now 18, attend
President Trump's joint address to Congress as my guest. Today, Marci
is still sharing her story and advocating for affordable healthcare, as
well as transgender rights. She, along with millions of others across
the country, is once again standing up, speaking out, and making it
clear that we cannot go backward.
I come to the Senate floor to share some of the stories of families
in my home State of Washington who are worried, who are afraid, and
whose lives will be at risk if President Trump and Republicans take us
down this dangerous path to repeal, people whose voices need to be
heard more than ever.
I want to make it very clear why we are here and what is at stake.
The House Republican TrumpCare bill would have a profoundly negative
impact on the lives and the well-being and the financial security of
people across the country, people who are truly terrified about the
uncertain path forward. Yet, for having such a profound impact,
Republicans are seemingly doing everything they can to limit public
discussion on TrumpCare. This bill was rushed through four House
committees without a single public hearing, no testimony, no expert
view. House Republicans voted the bill out of two of these committees
without a CBO score, without knowing how many people would be impacted.
In the Senate this week, every Senate Democrat on the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee called on the chairman to
allow for a hearing to talk about this bill, but he refused. He ignored
the request, and he held a hearing on other health policy instead. That
the Health Committee--the Health Committee--has not been allowed to
hold a single hearing to talk about and debate TrumpCare is appalling
and shameful.
Not to be outdone, of course, the majority leader, instead of
committing to give all Senators time to review and evaluate the bill,
has now said the bill will go straight to the floor for a vote as soon
as next week, prompting even Members of his own party to come out
against this plan.
In all, these efforts are unprecedented. They are wrong, and they
speak volumes about the kind of bill they are trying to ram through,
because we now know many of the facts of the bill.
This bill will kick 24 million people off their coverage. It will
cause premiums to skyrocket. Seniors will pay more for their care. It
will put at risk those who are struggling with mental illness and
substance use disorders, including opioid addiction. It would end
Medicaid as we know it.
Predictively, it attacks women's constitutionally protected
healthcare and rights. It defunds Planned Parenthood and puts insurance
companies back in charge of other critical parts of women's healthcare,
including maternity care, cancer screenings, and contraception. This
bill undermines women's access to healthcare and women's ability to
make their own healthcare decisions in virtually every way a piece of
legislation could.
I oppose this bill in the strongest terms. I am going to be doing
everything I can to fight back against it, and I know Senate Democrats
will as well.
Families across the country are looking to us, and they have nowhere
else to turn. Like many of my colleagues, I have constituents coming up
to me constantly when I am at home, asking me what is going to happen
if TrumpCare becomes law. They are bravely sharing deeply personal
stories about their health, their families, and their fears--something
they should not have to do. They deserve to be heard.
Erin Zerba from my home State of Washington deserves to be heard. She
has been a teacher for 19 years and teaches in two rural school
districts, but because of her part-time standing in both districts, she
is ineligible for insurance. If it weren't for the Medicaid expansion
under the Affordable Care Act, she would have no options.
As Erin puts it, she is ``terrified'' to learn that Medicaid would be
gutted under TrumpCare. She has multiple disabilities, including autism
and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. She has had repeated surgeries following a
difficult pregnancy. The medication she has to take every day is very
expensive. There is no generic form. She is one of those millions of
people.
I have to say that we are going to fight back in every way we can
because the TrumpCare bill that is being rushed through the House with
giveaways being given to Senators for their votes is not the way we
take care of people in this country. I am deeply worried about the
process of this bill.
I see the Democratic leader on the floor, and I know how important it
is for him to speak. I just want to say, as the ranking member on the
Health Committee, it is appalling to me that we have had no hearings,
no expert witnesses, no markup. We have not seen this bill, and it is
being rushed through. It will impact every single American and deserves
the time of day, not some created chaos and deadline timeline that was
created simply to fulfill a campaign promise and not to do the right
thing for the American people.
[[Page S1945]]
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Thanking the Senior Senator from Washington
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank the senior
Senator from the State of Washington, the ranking member of the Health
Committee, for her outstanding work on this issue. She knows this issue
better than just about anybody in this Chamber. She is passionate and
also fact-driven about her views and has had great influence on this
Chamber.
I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will review what
she said. To rush through a bill for a campaign promise--a bill that is
fraught with problems and difficulty, many of which will probably not
come to light until after the bill comes to the floor--is the wrong
thing to do. I thank the senior Senator from the State of Washington.
Terror Attack in London
Mr. President, first, I want to just say a few words. My heartfelt
condolences go to the families of the victims in London.
Terrorism strikes everywhere. It was so close to the symbol of Great
Britain--Parliament, Big Ben, a place we have all seen in pictures and
some of us have had the opportunity to see in person. It reminds us
that the scourge of terrorism needs to be eradicated in any way we can.
I am committed to that, and I know the 100 Members of this Senate body
are as well.
Our hearts go out to those who were lost.
Nomination of Neil Gorsuch
Mr. President, now I will move on to the subject I wish to speak
about at length this morning, and that is Judge Gorsuch.
I have had the opportunity these past 3 days to watch Judge Neil
Gorsuch in the Judiciary Committee and to review his credentials and
record on the Tenth Circuit and before that.
I would particularly like to recognize the outstanding work done by
every Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. They were
outstanding in questioning Judge Gorsuch despite his lack of candor and
desire to answer. I would like to particularly call out our exceptional
ranking member, Senator Feinstein, who has done a wonderful job leading
that committee.
I have thought long and hard about his nomination and what it means
for the future of the Supreme Court and for the future of our country.
What is at stake is considerable. The decisions we make here in the
Senate over the next few weeks about Judge Gorsuch, as on any Supreme
Court nominee, will echo through the lifetime tenure of that judge,
through a generation of Americans.
Discussions of the Supreme Court can get wonky and technical, with
invocations of precedent and canons of interpretation. What is at
stake, however, is not at all abstract; it is real and it is concrete
for Americans, whose lives, health, happiness, and freedoms are on the
line at the Supreme Court. Closely divided decisions recently have
meant the difference between the ability to marry the person you love
or not, the ability to have your right to vote protected or not, the
ability to make personal choices about your own healthcare or not. The
Supreme Court matters a great deal. It matters for workers who want to
protect both their lives and their jobs, for employees who need to be
able to seek redress for discrimination, and for parents who want their
kids to get a fair shake in the education system.
It is with all this in mind that I have come to a decision about the
current nominee. After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I
cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court.
His nomination will face a cloture vote. He will have to earn 60 votes
for confirmation. My vote will be no, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
To my Republican friends who think that if Judge Gorsuch fails to
reach 60 votes, we ought to change the rules, I say: If this nominee
cannot earn 60 votes--a bar met by each of President Obama's nominees
and George Bush's last two nominees--the answer isn't to change the
rules, it is to change the nominee.
This morning, I would like to lay out the reasons I will be voting no
on this nomination.
First, Judge Gorsuch was unable to sufficiently convince me that he
would be an independent check on a President who has shown almost no
restraint from Executive overreach.
Second, he was unable to convince me that he would be a mainstream
Justice who could rule free from the biases of politics and ideology.
His career and judicial record suggest not a neutral legal mind but
someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology. He was groomed by the
Federalist Society and has not shown 1 inch of difference between his
views and theirs.
Finally, he is someone who almost instinctively favors the powerful
over the weak, corporations over working Americans. There could not be
a worse time for someone with those instincts.
Judge Gorsuch's opportunity to disabuse us of all these objections
was in the hearing process, but he declined to answer question after
question after question with any substance. Absent a real description
of judicial philosophy, all we have to judge the judge on is his
record.
First, I want to address the first issue I raised, that of judicial
independence. It is so clear that at this moment in our history, our
democracy requires a judge who is willing to rule against this
President. This administration seems to have little regard for the rule
of law and is likely to test the Constitution in ways it hasn't been
challenged in decades. It is absolutely the case that this Supreme
Court will be tried in ways that few courts have been tested since the
earliest days of the Republic when constitutional questions abounded.
The President himself has attacked individual judges and the
credibility of the judiciary at large. The President has attacked a
three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit and said if they didn't decide
with him, they would be responsible for the next terrorist act. I have
never heard any President in my lifetime or read about any President in
previous history who dared do that. We are in uncharted territory with
this President and with judicial independence. It requires a strong
independent backbone. Judge Gorsuch has shown none. Senators on the
Judiciary Committee rightly asked Judge Gorsuch direct questions about
this issue. I did so myself in my meeting with the judge. While the
judge repeatedly asserted his independence, he could not point to
anything in his record to guarantee it. Judge Gorsuch offered the
Judiciary myriad platitudes on this point. ``No man is above the law,''
he said. He said he was ``disheartened'' by the President's attacks on
the judiciary. The President, for his sake, said that Judge Gorsuch
didn't mean him, and everyone left it at that.
If Judge Gorsuch had an ounce of courage, had shown a scintilla of an
ability to be independent, he would have said: No, Mr. President. No,
President Trump, I did mean you. Instead, he just tells us in general
that he is demoralized, disheartened. Telling us is not the same as
showing us. He is asking us to take him at his word, but his record
suggests that he has long been someone who has advocated extreme
deference to assertions of broad Presidential power.
That leads me to my second point; that Judge Gorsuch was unable to
convince me that he would be a neutral judge, free of ideology and
bias. The hearings this week were an opportunity for Judge Gorsuch to
explain his record, to tell us how he thinks and how his judicial
philosophy does not fundamentally advantage the powerful. Instead, we
got banalities and platitudes. We didn't get any real answers to any
real questions about what he thinks about the law and why. He refused
to answer general questions on dark money in politics, LGBTQ rights,
the constitutionality of the Muslim ban. I couldn't believe it, when I
asked him: Is a law that bans Muslims, a law that just said all Muslims
are banned from the U.S. unconstitutional, he couldn't even answer
that. He refused to say whether he agreed with Supreme Court decisions
in seminal cases like Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, Griswold v.
Connecticut, despite the fact that his predecessors, Justices Roberts
and Alito, said they agreed with those cases.
He refused to answer questions about the emoluments clause, a section
of the
[[Page S1946]]
Constitution that prohibits foreign corruption of U.S. officials.
Instead of an umpire calling balls and strikes in baseball, what we
really saw was a well-trained expert in dodgeball.
My friend, the ranking member of the committee, said it best. ``What
worries me,'' she told the nominee, ``is that you have been very much
able to avoid any specificity like no one I have ever seen before.''
Let me repeat. There is no legal standard, rule, or even logic for
failing to answer questions that don't involve immediate and specific
cases that are or could come before the Court. It is evasion, just
evasion, plain and simple, and it belies a deeper truth about this
nominee.
If anyone doubts that Judge Gorsuch doesn't have strong views, that
thinks he would be a neutral judge calling balls and strikes as Judge
Roberts once put it, just look at the way he was chosen. He was
supported and pushed forward by the Heritage Foundation and the
Federalist Society, and groomed by billionaire conservatives like Mr.
Anschutz. President Trump simply picked someone from off their list.
President Trump sought the advice and consent from the Federalist
Society instead of from the U.S. Senate. Does anyone think the
Federalist Society would choose someone who just called balls and
strikes? Does anyone think they would put on their list a neutral,
moderate judge when they haven't ever supported anyone but judicial
conservatives, almost all hard-right judicial conservatives in their
history? The Federalist Society has been dedicated for a generation to
influence the courts to favor corporations and special interests. If
anyone doubts that Judge Gorsuch could be an activist judge with views
eschewing the interests of average people, look at how he was
selected--by a group that is not neutral, a group that has been
dedicated to changing the judiciary and placing activist, hard-right
judges on the bench. Now that he is nominated, look at how much money,
dark, secret, undisclosed money--it is a good bet from the very
corporations Judge Gorsuch has been defending his whole career. If he
were so neutral, would they be spending this money? I doubt it.
Anyone groomed by the Federalist Society will not call balls and
strikes. Their views are best foretold by the ideology of the people
who groomed them. To say Judge Gorsuch has no ideology whatsoever is
absurd. He just will not admit it to the American people. To say he is
just neutral in his views is belied by his history since his college
days and by his own judicial record. He even tried to deny it. In the
hearings, Judge Gorsuch repeated the hollow assertion that judges don't
have parties or politics. He said there are no Democratic judges or
Republican judges, but if that were true, we wouldn't be here, would
we? If that were true, if the Senate were merely evaluating a nominee
based on his or her qualifications, Merrick Garland would be seated on
the Supreme Court right now. Merrick Garland is not a Justice. We all
know why. We all know my friends across the aisle held the Supreme
Court seat open for over 1 year in hopes that they would have the
opportunity to install someone handpicked by the Heritage Foundation
and the Federalist Society to advance the goal of Big Money interests
entrenching their power in the Court.
They don't even mind that this nomination is moving forward under a
cloud of an FBI investigation of the President's campaign. The
Republicans held a Supreme Court seat open for a year under a
Democratic President who was under no investigation but now are rushing
to fill the seat for a President whose campaign is under investigation.
It is unseemly and wrong to be moving so fast on a lifetime appointment
in such circumstances.
Finally, Judge Gorsuch came into this hearing with a record that
raises deep concerns about whether he would consider fairly the plight
of the average citizen before the interests of powerful special
interests. I examined his record. I saw a judge who repeatedly decided
with insurance companies that wanted to deny disability benefits to
employees. I saw a judge who, in unemployment discrimination, sided
with employers the great majority of the time. I saw a judge who, on
the issue of money and politics, seems to be in the same company as
Justices Thomas and Scalia, willing to restrict the most commonsense
contribution limits.
In the hearings, Judge Gorsuch did nothing to explain his philosophy,
did nothing to assuage those concerns. We will just have to go by his
record, a record that shows time and time again his rulings favor the
already powerful over ordinary Americans.
Judge Gorsuch ruled against a teacher, Grace Hwang, who, having been
through two bouts of cancer, was advised by her doctors not to return
to the college campus during a flu epidemic lest she put her life at
risk. She was fired for taking sick leave. Judge Gorsuch, true to form,
voted to uphold that dismissal. Her daughter Katherine told us last
week:
This decision to protect her health cost my mom her job.
When Judge Gorsuch issued his ruling, he didn't think about
the impact that this had on our family. The law calls for
``reasonable accommodation for those who are disabled.''
Judge Gorsuch ignored the human cost.
Judge Gorsuch ruled against a truckdriver, Alfonse Maddin, who had to
make a similar choice between his employer and his life. I met with
him. He told me a harrowing story of being stuck in the cab of a
tractor-trailer with frozen brakes, no heat, temperatures outside
dipping to 27 below zero. He had a choice, leave the trailer with
broken brakes and drive the cab to safety or stay in the trailer and
freeze to death. He radioed his company to explain his predicament.
They told him that the cargo was the most important thing; he couldn't
leave it. Rather than risk the lives of other motorists on a freezing
highway by driving a trailer with frozen brakes, Mr. Maddin struggled
to unhitch his trailer and drive his cab to safety--returning later for
it once he was not at risk of dying from the cold. For that, his
company fired him. He sued. Seven judges heard this case as it went
through appeal. Only one, Judge Gorsuch, in dissent, ruled against him.
Judge Gorsuch used an exceptionally technical and illogical reading of
the statute to reach the absurd conclusion that Mr. Maddin was
obligated to risk his life to protect his cargo.
Mr. Maddin said that Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court
gives him ``pause for concern'' because he ``demonstrated a willingness
to artfully diminish the humane element that encompassed the issue.''
Judge Gorsuch also ruled against a parent of a severely autistic
child, Luke, who sought what the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act guarantees him--the right to an education that met his
needs. Jeff Perkins, Luke's father, is testifying before the Judiciary
Committee today. Their story is powerful. Judge Gorsuch ruled that Luke
was not entitled to attend a specialized school because he was able to
make more than de minimis progress in the normal educational system.
Just yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously--including Justice
Alito and so many others who are so conservative--rejected Judge
Gorsuch's interpretation of the IDEA. The Court held that ``when all is
said and done, a student offered an educational program providing
`merely more than a de minimis progress from year to year can hardly be
said to have been offered an education at all.' '' That puts Judge
Gorsuch's interpretation of the IDEA law to the right of even Justice
Thomas--a very difficult feat.
Whom we put on the bench, their basic judgment, matters. While I do
not think that the personal views and experiences should bear on the
decisions of day-to-day cases, there is a reason we don't program
computers to decide cases. We do not want judges with ice water in
their veins. What we want and need are judges who understand the
litigants before them and bring a modicum--at least a modicum--of human
judgment into the courtroom. You can call this trait empathy or mercy.
I think it falls in the category of common sense. It is common sense
that necessarily comes from each person's own, unique life experience.
Even Judge Gorsuch acknowledged this when he told the committee ``I am
not an algorithm.'' Yet he wouldn't tell us how, as a human--a
nonalgorithm--he would uniquely approach a case.
When it comes to the application of the law, that empathy, that
mercy,
[[Page S1947]]
that ``humane element'' of common sense--as Alphonse Maddin, the
truckdriver, put it--is the most important judicial trait of them all
because ultimately the law is abstract, but the people and situations
are real. The task of the judge is to apply those abstract legal
doctrines to very humane and sometimes very messy situations. It is a
hard thing to do to bring fairness and justice to a world that is too
short on both.
I am reminded of the words spoken by Portia, the great lawyer in
``The Merchant of Venice,'' who spoke of the blessings and necessity of
mercy in applying the law.
He said:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The thron-ed monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself.
Judge Gorsuch told us he is not God, and that is true, but his
humanity does not excuse him from the attribute of mercy. Instead, his
humanity should require it.
Alphonse Maddin sought the mercy of the law. The Hwang family sought
the mercy of the law. Luke, the autistic child whose school was failing
him, sought the mercy of the law. The man who had the power to see
plain sense in their cases, who could rule in their favor and right the
wrongs that had been done to them as other judges had done in each of
those cases--Judge Neil Gorsuch--said no.
I am voting no on Gorsuch for Alphonse Maddin and workers across the
country, for the Hwang family and others who do not want to choose
between their health and providing for their children, and for the
Perkins family, who loves their children just as they are and wants for
them no fewer than the opportunities afforded to every other child in
America.
The American people deserve someone who sees average litigants as
more than incidental consequences of precedent, when that precedent
produces an absurd result, whose view of the law is not so cold and so
arid so as to wring out every last drop of humanity and common sense.
It requires only the bare minimum of judicial decency to rule the right
way in the cases I have mentioned, and Judge Gorsuch did not.
That is all the evidence my colleagues should need to vote no, and I
urge them and will urge them in the days ahead to do so.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today, we are truly in a historic fight, a
fight to protect one of the most treasured and revered American
values--our right to privacy. Make no mistake, our privacy has never
been more in danger, and the American public knows it.
The American public knows its privacy is in danger when a smart TV
can listen to its most intimate living room conversations--your
conversations with your children, with your parents, with your spouse.
The American public knows its privacy is in danger when it seems that
every day there is a hack on the databases of one of our country's
largest companies--Yahoo!, Target, Home Depot, JPMorgan Chase.
The American public knows its privacy is in danger when the Russian
surveillance machine--firing on all cylinders--hacks the U.S. election,
threatening to undermine our sacred democratic system.
The American public knows its privacy is in danger when both Chambers
of Congress hold countless hearings, launch investigations, and receive
briefings on the rapidly growing cybersecurity threat to our Nation and
the impact both on our national security and to the public.
The American public wants us to do more to protect its privacy. The
American public wants us to do more to protect its sensitive
information. Yet what do the Republicans in Congress want to do today
on the Senate floor? They want to make it easier for Americans'
sensitive information to be used, shared, and sold without their
permission.
Today, the Republicans are seeking a vote on a Congressional Review
Act resolution that would allow Comcast, Verizon, Charter, AT&T, and
other broadband companies to take control away from consumers and
relentlessly collect and sell their sensitive information without the
consent of that family.
That is sensitive information about your health, about your finances,
even about your children. They want to track your location and draw a
map of where you shop, where you work, where you eat, where your
children go to school, and then sell that information to data brokers
or anyone else who wants to make a profit off of you.
They want to document how many times you search online for heart
disease, breast cancer, opioid addiction treatments, or AIDS treatment,
and then sell that information to your insurance company. They want to
know what games your teenagers play or shows they watch so they can
then target ads to your family--and all of this done without your
consent.
What the Republicans are bringing to the floor today is going to
basically change the definition of ``ISP''--internet service provider--
to ``information sold for profit.'' It will stand for ``invading
subscriber privacy.''
President Trump, himself, is outraged about fake violations of his
own privacy, but we should all be alarmed by this very real violation
of privacy that will occur today if the Senate decides to roll back
these important consumer protections.
Here on the Senate floor, the Republicans are fighting to make it
easier for your broadband provider to use and sell that same type of
information--remarkably detailed and sensitive dossiers of information
about you, your kids, your parents, your grandparents--320 million
Americans.
The Republicans are trying to rescind the Federal Communications
Commission's broadband privacy rules, which simply require your cable,
wireless, or telephone company provider to obtain consumer consent
before using or sharing subscribers' personal information; promote
transparency by disclosing what they collect about internet and
wireless users; and adopt data security protections and notify
consumers if a breach occurs.
That is it. That is what this whole debate is all about--whether
consumers, not the broadband providers, have control over their
sensitive information.
The big broadband companies and their Republican allies say we need a
light touch regulatory framework to protect Americans' broadband
privacy--a light touch approach, like with the Federal Trade
Commission, which does not prescribe actual privacy rules. The Federal
Trade Commission only enforces the privacy policies companies create
for themselves, and then they bring an enforcement action if a company
violates its own very low standards, but if Comcast's or AT&T's or
Verizon's policy is that you have no privacy, there is nothing for
anyone to enforce. It would be impossible for the internet service
provider to violate its own nonexistent or very low privacy
protections.
Let's be clear here. When the broadband behemoths say ``light
touch,'' they mean ``hands off.'' They mean hands off their ability to
monetize captive consumers' sensitive information.
Let's be clear. When the big broadband barons and their Republican
allies are firing their opening salvo in the war on net neutrality,
they want broadband privacy protections to be the first victim.
When Republicans say we need to harmonize regulations, they really
mean self-regulation. Self-regulation is the ultimate dream of the
Republicans, who are beholden to those special interests. They really
want to allow broadband companies to write their own privacy rules.
Is this really what the American public wants--a harmonized, light-
touch approach to protecting their sensitive information from their
broadband providers? Does the American public really want us to allow
our broadband companies to ignore reasonable data security practices,
making consumers' sensitive information more vulnerable to breaches and
unauthorized access?
This resolution does just that. The internet service providers even
oppose
[[Page S1948]]
following reasonable data security practices.
We should know better. The American public wants us to strengthen our
privacy protections, not weaken them. The American people do not want
their sensitive information collected, used, and sold by any third
party, whether that be your broadband provider or a hacker.
At its core, this debate is about our values--our values as a people,
our values as a society. While technology has certainly changed, our
core values have not changed as a country. For generations, we have
valued the right to choose whom we let into our homes, whom we
communicate with, whom we share our most sensitive secrets with, but
now the Republicans and the broadband industry are telling us that we
must forgo those rights just because our homes are connected to the
internet and our phones are connected to the internet.
With many Americans across the country having only a couple of
broadband providers, at most, to choose from, they will not have the
option of changing service providers if their privacy protections are
not transparent or robust. And throughout it all, while the internet
service providers monetize your personal information, the monthly bill
will continue to show up for the service that is siphoning off your
sensitive information.
My colleagues, we know the attack on the free and open internet is
coming. Net neutrality is on the chopping block, and this is the first
step in ensuring that the few and the powerful control the internet. We
must stop this today, so I urge my colleagues to join with me.
The fundamental principle here is that every person should have the
knowledge that information is being gathered about their families when
they use the internet; second, that they have notice from the company
that that information is going to be resold to a third party, to
someone else, not to the broadband company; and third, that you have
the right to say no, that you do not want that information about your
family member to be resold.
When we were all younger and the salesman came to the front door and
knocked, your mother told you to tell the salesman that they could not
come into the house because the privacy of your family did not warrant
allowing a stranger into your home. The broadband companies now say:
Well, we are in your home, and we are wired in every room, and we now
have the right to take all of the information of your family and sell
it. What sites do your children go on? What sites do you go on to look
for help for the disease that someone in your family might have?
Now the broadband companies say they are coming right through the
front door. They are going into every room in your house. The American
people have the right to say what they have always said: No, you cannot
take those secrets of our family. You cannot take how we use that
information.
So this vote that we are about to take in the next couple of hours on
the Senate floor goes right to the heart of who we are.
We now hear more about the Russians, and we hear more about companies
whose information has been hacked. Then the Republicans are crying
their crocodile tears about the compromise of privacy of people in our
country, and then they come to the floor and take all of the
information online in the family and allow it to be sold as a product.
That is just fundamentally wrong. It goes contrary to the values of our
country.
I urge very strongly a ``no'' vote from the Members of the Senate.
Just remember: This is the privacy vote of all time on the Senate
floor--of all time--because there has never been anything like the
internet going into our homes. No one should be allowed to take all of
that information and just sell it without getting their permission.
Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I just want to
commend my colleague from Massachusetts for an excellent presentation.
He has really outlined A to Z with respect to what this issue is all
about. I commend him, and I also commend the ranking member of the
committee, Senator Nelson, our colleague from Florida, for his
excellent job.
Before he leaves the floor, picking up on the remarks of our
colleague from Massachusetts, I am particularly struck by the fact that
I have always thought that it is a classic conservative principle to
empower the individual--to empower the individual to make fundamental
choices about what would be important to them and their family and
their wallets and all of the activities that are central to the life of
a working class family.
What we have been touching on--very eloquently by my colleague from
Massachusetts--is we are going to be voting in a little bit to strip
rights from individuals, to retreat from that classic conservative
principle of empowering individuals and families to make decisions.
I think, for all of the reasons that my colleague from Massachusetts
has talked about and that Senator Nelson has been talking about, this
idea of stripping from individuals the right to make these fundamental
decisions and allowing the gatekeepers of the internet to collect,
share, and profit from personal information of consumers without their
consent is an extraordinary mistake for our country at this time.
I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I think, for
many people, these issues have, in effect, converged with respect to
privacy policy as it relates to the private marketplace, which is what
this ill-advised proposal that we are going to vote on today is all
about.
We are constantly offered up ideas that suggest that you really are
faced with what amounts to a flawed set of choices. In the intelligence
area, we are consistently told: Well, you just have to give up a little
bit of liberty to have security. And the reality is that liberty and
security are not mutually exclusive. Smart policies give us both. They
give us security and liberty. Unfortunately, around here, we are coming
up with policies, like weakening strong encryption, that are reducing
both--reducing security and reducing liberty. I think what we are
dealing with here on this ill-advised resolution in the Senate, with
respect to the FCC rule, is yet another set of false choices--that you
can either have internet access or privacy. They are not mutually
exclusive. Just as we can have security and liberty, we can have
internet access and privacy for all of the reasons that my friend from
Massachusetts has been outlining.
Now, the FCC acted on the responsibility given to them by the
Congress to protect browsing history--arguably the most intimate,
personal information imaginable. Browsing history makes what the Senate
did in the past with metadata look like small potatoes. Browsing
history is really a picture into your personal life. I have appreciated
the support of my colleagues for making sure that in the intelligence
field, without court oversight, you couldn't get access to people's
browsing history.
The Congress, in effect, told the Federal Communications Commission
to protect browsing history, favorite applications, and even locations
of American broadband users, and the FCC acted on it. Before that time,
there were no rules in place outlining how an internet service
provider--those are the ISPs that we always hear Senators talking
about--may use, share, or even sell their customers' private
information. So, just as the FCC has done for wireline phone customers,
the FCC said it was going to keep up with the evolution of
telecommunications networks by ensuring privacy protections would apply
to broadband internet use. This struck a lot of us as just common
sense. Again, building on the conservative principle of empowering the
individual, the judgment was that by creating what are called ``opt-
in'' consent agreements, where the consumer makes an affirmative
decision about what they want--it is not what government wants, it is
not what big companies want, it is what the consumer wants. The
judgment was that by creating this opt-in consent agreement, the
consumer would get a clear understanding of what the broadband provider
knows about them from, for example, their computer or from their
smartphone.
[[Page S1949]]
The big internet service providers are in a unique position to see
where information flows over the networks and can see more of
Americans' data than probably anybody else in what we might call the
internet ecosystem. The websites we visit, what we look for, what time
we are online--all of this, even our location--would be considered
highly personal and highly sensitive information.
The responsibility of the internet service provider is to protect
consumer privacy. It is compounded by the fact that the majority of
broadband consumers have only one option for fast internet service to
their home. There is only one company offering them service. So it
seems to me what we are talking about--what Senator Markey has
outlined--really looks like bad news for folks in rural areas where
they are only going to have one provider, and, frankly, I think in a
lot of metropolitan areas, particularly where there are modest-income
individuals.
Without these protections in place, most consumers are left with the
choice of giving up their browsing history for an internet service
provider to sell to the highest bidder or to have no internet at all.
So think about what that means for, say, an older person.
By the way, under what is being considered in the other body on
healthcare, people between 50 and 64 aren't going to have a lot of
extra money laying around. Those are people who are going to get
clobbered--clobbered--by the healthcare bill that is being considered
in the House today.
What is being considered in the House today--talking about the
wallets of people between 50 and 64--would allow the insurance
companies to charge people who are pre-Medicare five times as much as
younger people. So they are already going to be paying thousands of
dollars more out-of-pocket. Now, given what may happen in this body, we
would have consumers left with the choice of giving up their browsing
history for an internet service provider to sell to the highest bidder
or have no internet at all. So we are socking it to them in terms of
their healthcare premiums, and then we are socking it to them in terms
of essential communications as well.
I just think this is unacceptable and certainly contrary to the whole
notion of classic conservatism, empowering the individual. And it is
certainly taking away these rights from folks in rural America--most of
my towns in Oregon have populations of under 10,000 people. This
proposal that is being discussed here is going to strip consumers of
basic rights that are practically a requirement for economic success in
the 21st century.
I am going to close by picking up on another point that I think
Senator Markey said very well, and I believe I heard Senator Nelson,
our ranking member, touch on as well. It looks to me like a subject
that should not be in controversy: basic transparency and
accountability for the individual, and individual empowerment. It
shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't be a contentious matter. My
colleague and I served in the other body for a number of years, and we
built coalitions of people all across the political spectrum around the
principles we are advocating today. Providing transparency and
empowering the individual shouldn't be a contentious issue.
Under these regulations, internet service providers can still collect
and use their subscribers' information. The rules simply ensure that
internet service providers receive consent--receive permission from an
empowered consumer--that it is OK to reuse or sell their information,
and the companies would provide the consumers an explanation of how
their data is collected and where it is shared. These rules are about
transparency, plain and simple. Customers, especially those, as I have
indicated, who are captive to one internet service provider, deserve to
know how their internet service provider is using their data.
The broadband privacy rules are not some kind of attack on monetizing
consumer data, but simply a recognition of the importance of consumer
consent.
I will close by saying that more and more in this area, the American
people are getting presented false choices. They are being told, as I
see on the Intelligence Committee, that you have to give up some of
your liberty to have your security. Those are false choices. They are
not mutually exclusive. Everyone in America, everyone paying attention
to this debate ought to know that they have a right to both. Don't
ever, ever let a politician tell you that you have to give up some of
your liberty to have your security. You have a right to vote, and it is
our job, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to come up with
policies that do both.
Today, we ought to make sure that people aren't presented with
another false choice--that to have Internet access you have to give up
your privacy rights. You can have both, and the Federal Communications
Commission has sought to come up with a sensible policy to do that.
So I join my colleagues, particularly my friend from Massachusetts,
who knows so much about this field, and our terrific ranking minority
member, Senator Nelson, in urging colleagues to oppose a harmful
resolution that, in my view, turns class conservatism on its head and
strips consumers of their rights in a truly ill-advised manner.
I yield the floor.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose the resolution to repeal the
Federal Communications Commission's rule to protect consumers from
having their data sold by internet service providers, or ISPs, without
their permission.
Passing this resolution of disapproval would represent yet another
victory for big business and a defeat for hard-working Americans who
use the internet to do their job, connect with friends, or read the
news.
The internet started as a system to facilitate communication among
academic and military networks. In 1995, less than 1 percent of the
world used it. Today more than 87 percent of Americans and more than 40
percent of the world's population use the internet.
Today the internet has become nearly indispensable. Increasingly, our
toasters, refrigerators, and cars can connect to the internet, but
legislation has been slow to keep up with technology. Every website we
visit and every link we click leaves an unintended trail that tells a
story about our lives. ISPs can collect information about our location,
children, sensitive information, family status, financial information,
Social Security numbers, web browsing history, and even the content of
communications. ISPs sell this highly sensitive and highly personal
data to the highest bidder without any consent or knowledge.
Recognizing that telecommunications companies have little incentive
to tell consumers what they are doing with their personal data, the FCC
promulgated a rule to make sure that consumers can protect their
privacy though transparency, choice, and data security. The rule's name
explains its purpose: ``Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services.'' The FCC rule would
not stop companies from selling consumers' information, but the rule
would require ISPs to get consumers' consent before using, disclosing,
or allowing others to access this information.
As former FCC Chairman Wheeler said, ``It's the consumers'
information. How it is used should be the consumers' choice.''
With this resolution, Congressional Republicans are telling 9 out of
10 Americans that they should not be able to decide how private
corporations collect, disclose, and sell their personal data. This
resolution puts the special interests of data users above those of
consumers. I oppose the resolution.
Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are we
in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S.J. Res. 34.
Calling for the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve in this
body for more than 42 years, and I thank my native State of Vermont for
that.
[[Page S1950]]
When I joined the Senate, our country was still crawling out of an
intractable war--a war which came to an end with a vote in the Senate
Armed Services Committee in April of 1975. Since then, I have seen our
country slide into new wars. I have seen scandals that have consumed
this town and our Nation. I have seen horrific terrorist attacks that
have shaken our country to its core, from Oklahoma City to 9/11, and
others. All of these events, in different ways, have tested our
country. But I have never seen a threat to our democratic institutions
like I see today.
There is still much we do not know about Russian interference in the
2016 Presidential election, but what we do know is deeply disturbing.
Last night, reports indicated that there is evidence that certain Trump
officials coordinated the release of hacked documents with Russian
officials. And on Monday the FBI Director confirmed that the FBI has
been investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia since July of last year.
Already, the Intelligence Community has made public its conclusion
that Russian President Putin waged a multifaceted influence campaign to
delegitimize Secretary Clinton and help Donald Trump win the
Presidency. Worse, he intended to undermine public faith in our
democratic process. What is even worse is that this interference did
not end on November 8, election day. It is ongoing. That--whether you
are a Republican or a Democrat--should concern every American.
According to the Intelligence Community, President Putin will
continue using cyber-attacks and propaganda campaigns to undermine our
future elections. This is nothing less than an attack on our democracy.
It should outrage all Americans, no matter what their political
affiliation, and we need to know all the facts.
Frankly, my experience here tells me we need a thorough, independent
investigation. We need to send a clear message to President Putin that
America, our country--the country that the Presiding Officer and I
revere--will not tolerate future efforts to manipulate our most sacred
democratic process, our elections.
All of us here know that President Trump is not going to lead such an
investigation. He is not going to deliver this message. The President,
unfortunately, spent much of the 2016 campaign supportive of President
Putin. Then-Candidate Trump refused to call on Russia to stop meddling
in our election, saying: ``I'm not going to tell Putin what to do.'' He
even encouraged Russian hacking on live television, pleading: ``Russia,
if you're listening, I hope you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails
that are missing.'' It is unprecedented. No candidate, in my memory, of
either party has ever called on another country to interfere in our
elections that way.
This was occurring as the President was claiming to have had no role
in weakening the Republican Party's official position on Russia's
incursion into Ukraine. Of course, we have now learned that this was
false, and his campaign played a central role in softening his party's
stance on Russia.
I do not know why the President is so enthralled with President
Vladimir Putin, a man who has shown such disregard for personal rights,
even as he has made himself one of the wealthiest people in the world.
It may be simply because Russia is heavily invested in the Trump brand.
Years before the President denied having any financial relationships
with the Russians, his son admitted that Russians own a
disproportionate share of Trump assets, saying: ``We see a lot of money
pouring in from Russia.'' Now, just how invested Moscow is in Trump is
not known. The President broke with precedent of both Republicans and
Democrats and did not release his tax returns. But I imagine there
would be quite a sigh of relief if the only secret in the President's
full tax returns were that he did not pay his share of taxes and paid
far less than the average American.
The President, though, is not the only one in his administration
incapable of telling the truth when it comes to Russia. His Attorney
General provided testimony that was not true before the Senate
Judiciary Committee in response to questions from me and Senator
Franken about Russian contacts, and we know his first National Security
Advisor, Michael Flynn, resigned after lying to Vice President Pence
about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, also
resigned after questions were raised about his extensive activities in
Russia and Ukraine. Of course, now it has been reported that Mr.
Manafort earned $10 million per year for secret work on behalf of
Putin.
Another former adviser, Roger Stone, had early warning of the release
of hacked documents. He has admitted to having conversations with
``Guccifer 2.0,'' the Russian-connected hacker responsible for the
cyber-attack on the Democratic National Committee.
They say that where there is smoke there is fire. There is so much
smoke here that it is getting hard to breathe. The President
unfortunately continues to make matters worse. This week alone, he
continued his untruth about President Obama personally ordering a
wiretap of Trump Tower, something everybody knows is not true. I think
members of his own administration's inner circle are embarrassed every
time he persists in this.
On Monday, the President ramped up his own influence campaign to
undermine the integrity of this investigation, tweeting ``fake news''
as the Director of the FBI prepared to testify under oath in the House
of Representatives.
Now, I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the FBI's
investigation thus far, but I have every reason to believe it is
eventually going to be at risk. That is why we need somebody
independent--independent of the Congress, independent of the
administration. We need an independent special prosecutor to lead this
investigation and to ultimately decide whether there is sufficient
evidence to prosecute. A special prosecutor would not report to the
Attorney General, who himself is a witness to this investigation. And a
special prosecutor, unlike the Attorney General or even the FBI
Director, cannot be fired by the President.
I have thought long and hard about this. I went on my experience here
with administrations beginning with President Gerald Ford straight
through to today. It takes a lot of thought to call for a special
prosecutor, but this is one where we need it, where the American people
have to have somebody they can trust outside Republicans, Democrats,
and the Congress, and certainly outside the administration.
Our Nation is at a precipice. We can either confront what happened in
our election and get to the bottom of it with an independent
investigation and make sure it never happens again. Or we can just
pretend this is another Washington scandal and allow it to be filtered
through a familiar partisan lens. That would be a terrible mistake. In
all my years here, I have never seen a time when another country--one
that has shown its animosity toward us--has tried to interfere in our
elections. If Russia can get away with interfering with our elections,
what else can they interfere with in our democratic Nation? They do not
share the ideals we do. They do not allow free elections. They do not
allow freedom of expression. They do not allow their people to speak
out. Why would anyone think that they would have America's interests at
heart?
Today we have a counterintelligence investigation into the campaign
of a sitting President. There is evidence that this campaign colluded
with a foreign adversary to impact our Presidential election. This is
not normal. We must not treat it as such. I would feel this way no
matter who had won the election--no matter if they were Democrat or
Republican, because it goes beyond one party.
President Putin's goal last year was to undermine our democratic
institutions--to corrode American's trust and faith in government,
something that has sustained us through two World Wars, through a Civil
War, through all the other problems this Nation has faced. That trust
should sustain us long after every one of us in this body are gone.
This is a responsibility that we as Senators have to our great
Nation: not to think of ourselves for the moment, but to think where
this Nation is 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and 100 years from now. We
must do that. We owe that to the American people. Republicans and
Democrats alike, we owe it
[[Page S1951]]
to the American people. We take an oath to uphold our Constitution.
We come here, all of us--and I have great respect for every Senator
here in both parties--we come here hoping to do the best for our
Nation. Our Nation is in peril. All of us would stand together if we
had an adversary attack us. All of us would stand together if somebody
declared war on us. We have done that in the past. We did that after
Pearl Harbor. We did that other times in our Nation's history. Well,
because this is done quietly behind the scenes, it is a great attack on
us.
As I said, President Putin's goal last year was to undermine our
democratic institutions--to corrode Americans' trust and faith in our
government, no matter who is President. If we do not get to the bottom
of Russian interference, he will no doubt be successful. And if anybody
doubts it, if he is successful, he will try it again.
That is why we should stand united and call for a truly independent
investigation. The American people deserve nothing less. We can sit
here and talk about this bill and that bill, but it is so rare that we
have something overriding. This is overriding. Let's have an
independent investigation. This Senator is willing to accept that
whichever way it goes.
I see our distinguished majority leader on the floor.
I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Order of Procedure
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15
p.m. today there be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual
form, remaining on S.J. Res. 34; further, that following the use or
yielding back of that time, the joint resolution be read a third time
and the Senate vote on the resolution with no intervening action or
debate; finally, notwithstanding rule XXII, following disposition of
the joint resolution, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture
on Executive Calendar No. 20, David Friedman to be Ambassador to
Israel.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the rules that the Federal
Communications Commission recently promulgated--and when I say
``recently,'' it was October, only months ago--expanded the concept of
privacy and consumer protection as applied to broadband. Now we are on
the verge of rescinding those rules through S.J. Res. 34.
This resolution is a direct attack on consumer rights, on privacy, on
rules that afford basic protection against intrusive and illegal
interference with consumers' use of social media sites, websites, that
often they take for granted. Many Americans simply don't stop to think
about how broadband providers, as the carriers of all internet traffic,
are also able to collect and use consumer data, to put together a
detailed picture of who they are, what they do, where and when they buy
things, where they go, what they like to do--all of it an array of data
that people assume is private, all of it freely available to those
internet providers.
Even when data is encrypted, our broadband providers can piece
together significant amounts of information about us--including private
information, medical conditions, financial problems--based on online
activity. It is a mine that can be used--more valuable than a gold
mine--because that information can be sold and bought and used again so
that privacy becomes a completely evanescent and illusory feature of
our lives.
Consumers wanting to switch broadband providers are often hit with
hefty termination fees, and they have to experience a lapse in Internet
service at home--something that most simply don't have the luxury to do
or endure in today's connected society where internet is accessible.
They have no meaningful choice about how to safeguard broadband
privacy. They have one choice if they want speeds above 25 megabits per
second. That is why I applauded those rules when they were promulgated
by the FCC back in October, finalizing broadband privacy protections. I
applauded them because signing up for the internet should not mean you
sign away your rights to privacy.
Just as telephone networks must obtain consumer approval before
selling customer information, broadband providers ought to be required
to obtain consumers' affirmative consent before selling their sensitive
browsing or app usage data to advertisers. The FCC rules that this
resolution would decimate, utterly destroy, essentially seek to protect
that privacy interest. The only way the FCC's broadband privacy rules
protect consumers is through an affirmative opt-in consent. That is the
only real protection that works.
These rules also prohibit pay-for-privacy schemes that would require
consumers to waive their privacy protections as a precondition to
receiving service. They establish data security and breach notification
standards for broadband providers.
They also have important national security implications. Just last
week, the Department of Justice indicted four individuals, including
Russian spies, for hacking into Yahoo! systems in 2014 and obtaining
access to at least 500 million Yahoo! accounts. According to the
indictment, these Russian intelligence officers spied on U.S.
Government officials and private sector employees of financial
companies. One defendant also exploited the data for financial gain.
Without clear rules of the road, broadband subscribers will have no
certainty or choice about how their private information can be used, no
protection against abuse, and no assurance that security standards will
be bolstered against that kind of attack that the Russians and their
spies launched.
The FTC doesn't have jurisdiction over the security and privacy
practices of broadband, cable, and wireless carriers. If the Ninth
Circuit's recent decision in FTC v. AT&T is upheld, adopting a
``status-based'' instead of ``activity-based'' interpretation of the
FTC's common carrier exemption, the FTC's jurisdiction and ability to
impose privacy and security obligations would be even further
curtailed.
Critics also say that the FCC's broadband privacy rules would
unfairly create a separate regulatory regime for ``edge providers,''
websites such as Google or Facebook. If that is their real concern, why
haven't they focused their efforts on ensuring that the FTC has
meaningful rulemaking authority so that it can implement privacy and
data security rules over such websites?
In closing, I have long supported giving the FTC authority to adopt
its own rules governing the privacy and security of websites. Giving
the FTC authority to adopt new rules would help ensure our privacy,
keep our privacy safe no matter where we go on the internet or how we
connect. However, I don't see any of our colleagues, in supporting this
resolution, rushing to accomplish these goals.
We should all remember that consumers need control over their own
information and how it is used. This resolution would subvert and
sabotage that control.
All too often, Americans take for granted privacy until it is lost.
Once it is lost, rarely can it be recovered. Once that information
becomes public, privacy is irreparably damaged.
Today's vote, if it succeeds, will deprive Americans of important
baseline privacy standards that they expect and demand the government
to provide. Few Americans are aware of this vote today. Many will be
aware of its consequences. It will do extraordinary damage to privacy,
if it is approved.
I urge my colleagues to reject it and to help preserve American
privacy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S1952]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the anniversary of one
of the most significant legislative achievements in American history,
the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also
known as ObamaCare.
I rise in strong opposition to the American Health Care Act, a
callous and carelessly written bill that would roll back progress and
strip health insurance from millions of Americans.
I rise on behalf of people like Chrystal from my home State of
California. You see, I know Chrystal. She works in my dentist's office.
In early 2011, just after I was elected attorney general of California,
I went in for a checkup. It had been a while since I had seen her.
Chrystal asked me how I had been, and I asked her how she had been, and
then she shared with me great news. She was pregnant.
As a dental hygienist, she was working for a few different dentists
and wasn't on the payroll of any of them as a full-time employee. This
was before the ACA was in place, so Chrystal was on private insurance
with only basic coverage, just enough to cover her annual exams.
When Chrystal found out she was pregnant, she went to her insurance
company to apply for prenatal coverage. She was denied. When I asked
her why, she told me that they said she had a preexisting condition. So
you can imagine I asked her: Are you OK? What is wrong? What is the
preexisting condition?
She told me she was pregnant.
When she applied to another healthcare company for insurance, again,
she was denied. Why? Preexisting condition. What was it? She was
pregnant.
So this young woman was forced to go into her sixth month of
pregnancy before she received a sonogram. Instead, thankfully, there
was a free clinic in San Francisco, so she could get her prenatal care.
Thank God she had a strong and beautiful baby boy. His name is
Jackson. They are both doing well today.
Thank God that situation is no longer the reality for millions of
Americans.
I share Chrystal's story to remind us what America's healthcare
system looked like only a few years ago.
We should not forget that before the ACA, 48 million Americans lacked
health insurance. That is more people than the entire country of
Canada.
Before the ACA, when these people got sick, they had three choices:
Go without treatment, go to the emergency room, or go broke.
Before the ACA, 129 million people--almost one out of every two
Americans--could be denied insurance coverage because of preexisting
conditions. And the minute you got sick, your insurer could dig up some
flimsy reason to drop your coverage. You could be denied coverage for
chemotherapy or insulin if you had cancer or diabetes. You could be
denied prenatal coverage if you were pregnant, like Chrystal. You could
even be denied health coverage if you were a victim of domestic
violence.
Before the ACA, healthcare costs were crushing low-income and middle-
class Americans. Premiums--which, of course, are those monthly bills
that we all pay for our insurance--were going up and up. Sky-high
medical bills were the No. 1 reason Americans went broke, causing them
to sell their homes, their cars, and even pawn their jewelry to pay off
their debts.
One of the worst things about facing the healthcare system without
coverage before the ACA was that it left you feeling utterly alone.
Most Americans know what I am talking about: that knot in your stomach
when you know there is something wrong with your health or the health
of your child or your parent, but you are not sure what it is, whether
it can be fixed or whether your insurance will cover it, and the
frustration, the anger as you try to make sense of the fine print and
codes on the medical bill that has so many zeros.
How many of us have walked into an emergency room with a loved one
and felt time just stop? Maybe it was with your child who was running a
fever or having trouble breathing. Maybe your partner is being rushed
in with a possible heart attack. All you will know is that something is
wrong. All you know is that you are overwhelmed and scared, and you
know that you should not also have to fight on the phone with an
insurance company or wonder if a doctor will even see you at all. That
is how millions and millions of Americans experienced our healthcare
system.
It was not right or fair. So the ACA set out to make things better,
and 7 years ago today, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable
Care Act into law. It finally extended good, affordable health
insurance to Americans like Chrystal all across the Nation. Vice
President Biden was absolutely right when, at the time, he said that it
was a ``big''--and then I will not quote the next word; let's call it
blanking--``deal.''
It is a shame that people have been playing politics with this law
and with America's health. The former Speaker of the House said that
the ACA would be ``Armageddon.'' A Republican Presidential candidate
who now sits in the Cabinet called the ACA--and these are his actual
words--``the worst thing that has happened in this nation since
slavery.''
Earlier this month, the President of the United States tweeted that
the ACA is ``a complete and total disaster.'' Well, I say: Tell that to
the people of California because when a State wants to make the ACA
work, it works--whether that is California or Kentucky, and real people
living real lives know it.
For example, I recently heard from Myra from Sherman Oaks, CA, who
was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer. She wrote:
Before ObamaCare, my husband and I lived under constant
stress due to our lack of good health insurance.
But, because of the ACA, Myra told me:
We had a Silver Blue Shield plan that covered . . . well
over a million dollars in bills to date. I am happy to report
I am now well, but without insurance, I was facing a death
sentence. Without the ACA, we would certainly have had to
sell our home to pay my bills and try to figure out how to
make ends meet.
She wrote that it covered well over a million dollars. That is what
the ACA does.
Here is how Cindy of from Oakley, CA, has experienced real life. She
wrote:
My daughter was diagnosed with an eating disorder at 13
years old and I can directly thank the excellent care
received at Kaiser Northern California for her good health
today at age 17. Without the ACA and the mental health parity
it helps provide . . . I would not have had treatment options
available to me.
Again, coverage for mental health treatment--that is what the ACA
does.
Honoree, a single mom from Samoa, CA, living with a spinal cord
injury that has kept her from working for 3\1/2\ years, wrote to me and
said:
I wanted to let you know that I love ObamaCare! My
healthcare has steadily improved since the ACA was enacted. .
. . I can't tell you how AMAZING it felt to get my teeth
cleaned and cared for after waiting more than a decade.
I walked around for weeks saying, ``thanks, ObamaCare!''
whenever I sensed how good my teeth felt.
I would be saddened to see the ACA get scrapped. It's made
a huge difference in our lives. Actually, I'd be more than
saddened, I'd be very scared.
Again, this is testimony about the ACA, in this case about dental
coverage and improved healthcare. That is what the ACA does.
I will state that I believe there is a huge disconnect between the
over-the-top criticism of the ACA and the law's actual impact. There is
a disconnect between the politics and how people are actually living
and thriving under the ACA. In fact, in a recent poll, one in three
Americans didn't even realize that the ACA and ObamaCare were actually
the same thing, and they are. So, everybody, let's be clear about this.
The Affordable Care Act is ObamaCare, and ObamaCare is the Affordable
Care Act.
We all know, of course, that there are ways to improve the ACA, but
ending it is not the answer. The truth is that the ACA has largely done
what it was supposed to do--expand, protect, and reduce--expand
coverage, protect consumers, and reduce the pace of rising healthcare
costs. Thanks to the ACA and Medicaid expansion, 20 million
[[Page S1953]]
more Americans have health insurance. That is the population of the
entire State of New York. Thanks to the ACA, premiums are going up at
the slowest rate in half a century. Thanks to the ACA, doctors are
innovating and providing better preventive care, from keeping people
out of the hospital to delivering healthier babies. Thanks to the ACA,
insurers cannot set lifetime limits on your care, meaning your
insurance company won't tell you in the middle of a cancer treatment
that they have paid all they ever will. Thanks to the ACA, millions of
underserved Americans in rural towns and in cities and everywhere in
between have access to care for the first time. Thanks to the ACA,
young people can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26.
Thanks to the ACA, 55 million women have insurance that works--
mammograms, checkups, and birth control with no copays. When you pick
up your prescription at the pharmacy and see that the bill is zero
dollars, well, that is the ACA. And thanks to the ACA, you can't be
discriminated against if you have a preexisting condition, including
that preexisting condition called being a woman.
Of course, navigating the healthcare system is still daunting, but
things are better. There are now some rules of the road to keep
insurance companies from taking advantage of you during some of life's
most vulnerable moments. Because of the ACA, because of ObamaCare, you
can sleep a little easier at night and know that your care will be
there when you need it.
Let's fast-forward to today. Today, we mark the seventh anniversary
of this historic life-changing law. But all that it covers and protects
could also be ripped away, and that is because of the American Health
Care Act, the Republican healthcare plan on the House side. That is
what it will do--rip it all away.
They have done their best to mislead folks about their plan. They
have criticized objective news reports, and they even questioned the
Congressional Budget Office--which, as we know, is, by the way, a
nonpartisan, independent office which crunched the numbers and found
that this new plan would cause millions of Americans to lose insurance
coverage.
Before we leap on to this new bill, let's all ask some key questions.
Let's all take a good look at what this plan really would and would not
do.
First, will this bill provide insurance for everybody, as President
Trump promised? Well, the answer is no. In fact, the independent
Congressional Budget Office says that under the GOP plan, 24 million
Americans will lose their health insurance by the end of the decade.
That is equal to the population of 15 States combined.
Who are these people? These are middle-class families, our Nation's
teachers, veterans, truckdrivers, nurses, and farmers. These families
include those who struggle with opioid addiction, have a child that
needs support for autism, or have an aging parent who needs a nursing
home. This bill threatens them all.
Let's ask: Will the plan help the folks who need care most? The
answer is no. The House Republican plan's flat tax credits are based
only on age, with no consideration of income level. So what that means
is that a 40-year-old cashier making $10,000 gets the exact same amount
as the 40-year-old banker making $74,000 a year. It doesn't matter
whether you live in downtown Manhattan or the Cleveland suburbs or
rural Alaska.
Let's ask: Will monthly costs go down for low-income and middle-class
families who are stretched horribly thin right now? The answer is no.
According to that same independent analysis, the Republican plan will
immediately increase American families' premiums by 15 to 20 percent,
with higher deductibles and out-of-pocket costs after that. In the next
decade, a person in their fifties could see their insurance costs go up
850 percent. Their insurance costs can go up 850 percent.
Let's ask: What about our seniors--will their monthly costs go down?
Sadly, the answer is no. The Republican plan lets insurers charge
seniors five times as much as other Americans, meaning that high
cholesterol your doctor diagnosed could cost you $3,200 more a month.
Let's ask: Will all women still have access to affordable family
planning? The answer is no. This new bill will give Americans choice in
healthcare, but the women of America will not have choice. The bill
denies women tax credits if they get a plan that covers abortions. It
prohibits Planned Parenthood from providing care for millions on
Medicaid. Some 2.5 million patients choose Planned Parenthood every
year, including roughly 1 million in California. They should be able to
see the provider they choose and trust.
Let's ask: Will this new plan protect Medicaid, as President Trump
promised? Well, the answer is no. Medicaid covers many people whose
jobs don't offer healthcare, and it also pays for half of all the
births in this Nation. It supports people with disabilities and
children with special needs. Most people don't realize that Medicaid is
the primary payer for treatment of opioid addiction and substance
abuse. But this new plan being offered by House Republicans would roll
back Medicaid coverage and cut nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid benefits
over the next decade.
Let's ask: Does the plan put American families ahead of insurance
companies? The answer, tragically, is no. Under this plan, if you lose
your job and it takes more than 2 months to find another, you will be
charged a 30-percent penalty on top of the monthly costs you are
already paying. That money goes right into the insurance company's
pockets.
So, by now, you are probably wondering: Who exactly does this bill
help? Well, here is your answer. It gives millionaires a $50,000
average tax cut every year. It gives the top 0.1 percent in this
country a $195,000 tax cut every year. It gives insurance companies a
$145 billion tax break over the next decade. The President and the
Speaker want you to believe that this plan is good for American
families, but under their bill, the only thing that gets healthier are
the insurance companies' bottom line.
As far as California is concerned, this bill would devastate our
families. Here are the facts, and, frankly, here is the fight. Over 5
million Californians have received insurance through the Affordable
Care Act. I say they are worth fighting for.
Since the ACA went into effect, California's uninsured population has
been cut almost in half, from 17 percent to about 7 percent. I say they
are worth fighting for.
Medi-Cal went from covering 8.5 million Americans to 13.5 million
today. One in two children are covered under Medicaid. I say they are
worth fighting for.
The community clinics and health centers that so many Californians
rely on would be cut back or closed. I say they are worth fighting for.
A UC Berkeley study estimates that repealing the ACA would cost
California up to 200,000 jobs, everyone from home healthcare aides and
janitors to workers in retail, restaurants, and accounting. I say they
are worth fighting for.
I rise today to emphasize that it is really important that we
understand the everyday consequences of this bill. We are talking about
real people. If you are a farmer in the Central Valley on Medicaid, you
can lose that coverage. If you are a Los Angeles senior with diabetes,
you may no longer be able to afford coverage on the individual market.
If you are a family in Shasta County with a child dealing with a
prescription drug addiction, substance abuse treatment likely will not
be covered. If you are a couple in Humboldt County with an ailing
parent, your request for home health services could be denied. These
are the kinds of Californians and the kinds of Americans who this plan
would hurt.
When these folks wake up at 3 a.m. worrying about an ache or pain or
their next chemo appointment, when they wake up with that concern and
that thought at 3 a.m., I promise you, they are not thinking about that
through the lens of being a Republican or a Democrat. They think about
themselves as fathers, mothers, parents, daughters and sons, and
grandparents. They worry about their health needs and how their health
needs will affect not only themselves but their loved ones. These
concerns are not about politics. These are universal concerns, and we
have all been there.
It is because all of us share these concerns and because all of us
would be badly harmed by this new plan that
[[Page S1954]]
this bill is opposed by the American Medical Association, the American
Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, the American
Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes
Association, and the AARP. They are the most respected medical and
patient advocacy groups in this country, and they know what is at
stake.
Ultimately, I believe this bill is not just about medicine or math; I
believe this is about morals. The plan that the House is voting on
today is a values statement, and it is not a good one. As our former
President said about the ACA, this is more than just about healthcare;
it is about the character of our country, and it is about whether or
not we look out for one another.
I think we need to take a good, hard look in the mirror and ask: Who
are we as a country? Are we a country that cuts the deficit by cutting
care for our most vulnerable?
Let's look in the mirror and ask: Are we a country that gives tax
breaks to insurers while giving higher medical bills to patients?
Are we a country that tells seniors and cancer patients and women
``You are on your own''?
Are we a country that sees healthcare as a privilege for a few or a
right for all?
I believe that is what we have to decide.
The ACA is not perfect. It can be strengthened, and I am willing to
work with anyone who will work in good faith to do that, but it is time
to stop playing politics with public health.
Our government has three main functions: public safety, public
education, and public health. We shouldn't be turning these
responsibilities into partisan issues. Instead, we should be figuring
out how to improve the lives of all Americans, whether we are
Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.
People are counting on us, people like one of my constituents in Kern
County--a woman who is suffering from lung disease, who said:
We are not asking for much . . . decent healthcare. . . .
Don't take it away. . . . Make it better.
I say to my colleagues: Do not take away American people's
healthcare. Let's make it better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Under the previous order, there
will now be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form,
prior to a vote on S.J. Res. 34.
The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, speaking of the vote that we will be
having in just a few minutes, for the last several weeks, this Chamber
has worked very hard to undo harmful rules and regulations that had
been put forward by the Obama administration, at the last moment, as he
was headed out the door. These are rules that hurt job creators and
stifle economic growth.
The FCC privacy rules are just another example of burdensome rules
that hurt more than they help and serve as another example of the
government's picking winners and losers. They unnecessarily target
internet service providers and, ultimately, make our internet ecosystem
less efficient by adding more redtape.
The bottom line is that the FCC privacy rules are bad regulations
that need to be repealed.
I should also note that this Congressional Review Act vote will not
change the entire online privacy protections that consumers currently
enjoy, and it will not change statutory privacy protections under the
Communications Act. It will repeal something that was done unilaterally
by President Obama and his administration, as I said, following the
ending of his term, as they were headed out the door.
I thank the junior Senator from Arizona, Senator Flake, for his work
on this CRA and moving it forward.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution of
disapproval.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, today, we will vote on a resolution that
will take away privacy protections from the American people. By voting
for this resolution, Congress is ignoring the fact that people want
more protections online, not fewer.
In 2016, Pew did a study to determine the state of privacy in the
United States, and the center found ``Americans express a consistent
lack of confidence about the security of everyday communication
channels and the organizations that control them.''
Pew found that this is especially true when it comes to the internet.
People no longer trust organizations--public or private--to protect the
data they collect.
Today, we are going to make that worse. That is because broadband
providers know our complete browsing history. Think about that for a
second. They know everything we do online, everything we search for on
a daily basis. Think about how personal that information is, how it
paints a picture of who we are. It is totally reasonable for broadband
providers to have to ask customers for their consent before they take
that information--our browsing history, what we do online--and sell it
to a third party.
That will no longer be the case after the Republicans vote for this
bill and it is enacted into law. Broadband providers will be able to
take your browsing history and sell it without your permission. The FCC
spent months on this rule, and by using the CRA to get rid of it,
Congress is taking away the FCC's authority to do anything like it ever
again. That will mean there is no Federal agency--not the FTC, not the
FCC--that will even have jurisdiction over the issue of privacy for
broadband providers.
What is the solution here? We should work with the private sector,
the FCC, and the FTC to find a comprehensive solution together.
At a time when data collection and use is increasing exponentially,
Republicans should not be rolling back protections for consumers. This
is yet another repeal without replace.
Fifty-five years ago this month, President Kennedy gave a seminal
speech about consumer rights. He spoke about the march of technology--
how it had outpaced old laws and regulations and how fast that progress
had occurred. That progress is only getting faster. The next massive
technological change will be the ``internet of things,'' in which we
will have tens of billions of devices connected to each other and
interacting with us whether we like it or not.
As technology marches on, what stays the same is the bedrock
principle that President Kennedy outlined, which is that consumers have
a right to be safe, a right to be informed, a right to choose, and a
right to be heard. Those rights are in jeopardy. The FCC took a small
but important step, but the Republicans are walking it back.
Let me be clear. This is the single biggest step backward in online
privacy in many years. I urge a ``no'' vote.
I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Under the previous order, the joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Paul).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
[[Page S1955]]
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--48
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Isakson
Paul
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 34) was passed, as follows:
S.J. Res. 34
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications
Commission relating to ``Protecting the Privacy of Customers
of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services'' (81 Fed.
Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016)), and such rule shall have no
force or effect.
____________________