[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 156 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6212-S6215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



           Hurricane Recovery Efforts and Targeted Tax Relief

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been quite a few weeks now since 
Harvey hit and, then, Irma. Now Maria has devastated the island of 
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Of course, my gaze has been firmly 
on the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey back in my home State of 
Texas. Yet we are joined together with those who suffered under Irma 
and Maria, and we will remain steadfastly with them as we all work to 
recover from these terrible hurricanes.
  Last week, I rode in a Black Hawk helicopter with Russ Poppe, as well 
as our Adjutant General, John Nichols. Mr. Poppe is executive director 
of the Harris County Flood Control District. We were able to survey in 
the air things I had seen up close during several trips back home, the 
wreckage of the land and livelihoods.
  It is an emotional thing for families and homeowners to basically 
take all of their worldly possessions out to the front of their house 
and put it in the front yard because it is completely ruined as a 
result of the water, along with things like the drywall, trying to 
attack the mold before it grows and makes the house uninhabitable.
  We saw from about 10,000 feet in the air what we had previously seen 
from the ground, but from the air, you definitely get a different 
perspective on the waterlogged landscape. You see so much more. You see 
the levees, the reservoirs, the areas hit. You see the damaged goods 
and drywall that people have taken out of their homes as the first step 
toward recovery. It definitely has an impression on you, particularly 
with the size and scale of the affected area. It is really hard to 
believe until you see it from that perspective.
  So when I took off my headset and sunglasses--and by the way, Speaker 
Paul Ryan joined us on that particular trip, and we all appreciate his 
being there. When we stepped off the chopper, what I thought about was 
not only what we have done so far but how much further we still had to 
go. It is not just about building materials, street and roof repairs, 
or even the temporary housing that people need, although all of those 
things are surely important. We need to remember that the remedies are 
not going to be one-size-fits-all. We need broad support, but we also 
need targeted and narrow support to help people get back on their feet. 
We need to keep each family in mind and what their own particular needs 
may be depending on their particular circumstances.
  As I started out to say, it is not just Texas we are talking about 
anymore; it is Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands too. We all 
remember that those places were hit by Hurricanes Irma and Maria right 
after Texas was hit by Harvey.
  I want to make one thing clear, though: We in Texas stand together 
with our fellow Americans who suffered from Hurricanes Maria and Irma, 
as well as those who suffered from other natural disasters occurring in 
and around our country, and we will do everything we can to help the 
people who were harmed and damaged, even devastated by these terrible 
storms. We will help them fight to get back on their feet, to recover, 
and to return their lives to some form of normalcy.
  One way we can work together and deliver relief to different people 
in different geographic areas is in providing temporary tax relief. 
Now, I know this sounds kind of like a small thing to do, but if you 
think about it, this is a thousand-year storm. Hurricane Harvey dropped 
34 trillion gallons of water on the same area over a period of about 5 
or so days. Many people were not in the hundred-year floodplain, which 
is typically where you would buy flood insurance, so many people 
suffered losses that were not covered by flood insurance. What many of 
these folks will have to do is dip into their retirement savings and 
other savings in order to help to get life back to normal. This relief 
will help folks get back on their feet as they rebuild their homes and 
businesses and neighborhoods in the wake of these hurricanes.
  We recently passed--earlier this afternoon--a Federal Aviation 
Administration reauthorization, but it also included the tax package I 
am talking about now that provides this targeted relief. These 
provisions will help hurricane victims in all of the devastated areas 
keep more of their paycheck, first and foremost, but be able to deduct 
the cost of their property damage on their tax return and encourage 
even more Americans to generously donate to hurricane relief to help 
their neighbors and employees.
  I know this tax package is a small matter. It is not a panacea and 
certainly not a cure-all, and it is not supposed to fix every storm-
related problem or absolve us from honoring our ongoing 
responsibilities in the days ahead. But as John Steinbeck once said, 
``and now that you don't have to be perfect, you can just be good,'' 
and I think these are good reforms. They will complement other measures 
by the Federal Government, as well as other State and local actors.
  Similar provisions were introduced in a noncontroversial section of 
the FAA reauthorization bill that unfortunately House Democrats, led by 
Leader Pelosi, tried to block earlier this week. Despite the delays, I 
am pleased that the House acted a second time earlier today to ensure 
that this relief is delivered to those who need it most--again, not 
just in Texas but in Florida, the Virgin Islands, and in Puerto Rico, 
which reportedly has been devastated. Now we in this Chamber seem to 
have finally gotten the message, too, by passing this relief just this 
very afternoon as part of the FAA bill.
  Our colleague from Florida, Representative Carlos Curbelo, said

[[Page S6213]]

about the hurricane victims in his home State: ``They don't have time 
to wait. They certainly don't have time to play political games.'' He 
is right, and now we can say we have taken those words to heart.
  So I remember what I saw from that helicopter. Now that the time for 
surveying the scene has ended, what is no longer up in the air is this: 
For many Texans, Floridians, and Puerto Ricans, targeted tax relief 
will serve to make a difficult year just a little easier.
  So I salute the House for getting the job done, and I am glad we in 
this Chamber have quickly followed suit.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to thank the senior Senator from 
Texas for his leadership in the disaster response, and I pledge my 
commitment to whatever is needed for Houston and the areas around 
Houston, as well as Florida. I appreciate the commitment at the 
legislative level for what needs to be done in Puerto Rico.
  Mr. President, we also need to continue to apply pressure to the 
administration because it does appear as though there is an unequal 
response between what is happening in Puerto Rico and what has happened 
in Houston and in Florida. So we need to hold as a country the 
executive branch accountable for the lack of a sense of urgency for 3.5 
million Americans who are mostly going to be without power for 9 
months, who are currently without potable water, who are in a 
devastated situation. It is our obligation to do everything we can.
  Mr. President, the Senate is about to make an important decision 
about who leads the Federal agency that oversees everything from the 
internet, to the TV, to radio.
  This vote is a choice: We can either give our stamp of approval on 
the FCC's direction under the leadership of Chairman Pai, or we can 
decide that his leadership has put the FCC on the wrong track and that 
it is time for someone else to take charge.
  Generally speaking, here is how I approach a nomination. There are 
three reasons one might reject a nominee. If the person is corrupt, it 
is a nonstarter. If the person is nonqualified, it is also a 
nonstarter. And even on policy grounds, in the policy space, just 
disagreeing with someone can often boil down to the fact that there is 
a President from another party and is not sufficient to vote no.
  Chairman Pai is someone I know. He is skillful, he is a decent human 
being, he is very smart, and he is qualified. When we disagree, we can 
do it in a way that doesn't ruin our ability to work together on the 
following day on the following issue. And this is no small thing in 
today's political climate. So it is important that if we are ever going 
to get something done, we are able to disagree and find common ground 
afterward.
  I do like Chairman Pai as a person. I think he is ethical and he is 
capable. But he is just so wrong on policy. For me, that means he is 
not the right leader for the FCC. I want to highlight four of the 
concerns I have.
  First, the FCC really is trying to end the internet as we know it by 
getting rid of net neutrality. If they succeed, your internet service 
provider will have the power to stop you from seeing certain kinds of 
content. They will be the ones that make decisions about what you can 
access online and how fast and how much you have to pay for it.
  Some people say that companies aren't going to change the internet 
because it is not in their interest to change the internet, even if the 
law goes away. But think about this: Most often, these ISPs are 
publicly traded companies, and they are going to make decisions based 
on their own financial interests. It is not just an objective; it is 
their obligation. If there is an opportunity to change their business 
model for internet service, they are duty bound to pursue it. They do 
not have any obligation to a free and open internet; they have an 
obligation to shareholders and to profits.
  That is why net neutrality exists in the first place--because we 
should not leave it up to any company to decide whether they are going 
to charge people more to stream video, for example, or block certain 
content altogether. If we allow the FCC to end net neutrality, 
Americans across the country are going to find that the internet no 
longer works in the way that it should. And this has happened under 
Chairman Pai's leadership.
  It is not just bad policy that he is pursuing; they have also had 
some serious process fouls. When Chairman Pai announced that the FCC 
was revisiting the rules, he made clear that the FCC was going to get 
rid of net neutrality regardless of what happened throughout the 
process. He said: ``This is a fight we intend to wage and it is a fight 
we intend to win.'' Why is that a significant thing to say? ``This is a 
fight we intend to wage and it is a fight we intend to win.'' This a 
quasi-judicial agency. They just opened up a public comment period. 
There were 22 million members of the public who submitted public 
comments after the Chairman of the Commission has already announced 
that he has decided which way they are going to go. I think that is 
antithetical to the governing statute, and it is antithetical to the 
basic premise that if you have an open comment period where an 
individual has an opportunity to express themselves, you have to listen 
to them. You don't say: I already decided, but you 22 million people--
if you have an opinion, I will be happy to receive it and file it and 
do what I planned to do all along. That is the exact opposite of how 
this is supposed to work.
  The agency proposes the rule, the public weighs in, and then the 
agency considers the comments from the public in making the decision. 
But Chairman Pai turned it upside down. The FCC has tried to diminish 
the fact that so many people tried to weigh in. About 96 percent of the 
roughly 22 million people who have weighed in have weighed in in favor 
of net neutrality. They are trying to lay the groundwork to get rid of 
net neutrality even though the vast majority of people are for it. By 
doing that, the FCC is effectively saying that lobbyists and law firms 
matter more than regular citizens.
  This is just the tip of the iceberg. The FCC has claimed that cyber 
attacks kept people from being able to comment, but they have not been 
forthcoming about what exactly happened, and we are still working in 
our oversight role to figure that all out.
  Secondly, I would like to address media ownership. Local TV 
broadcasters are an essential part of every community. People know 
their local TV station. They trust it. There is a range of perspectives 
offered. Because the broadcasters are based in the community, they have 
relationships with their viewers that make their content better and 
more relevant.
  For decades, Congress and the FCC have taken steps to keep local 
broadcasting local because it benefits the public interest. These are 
the public airways. It is like fast food options across the country. 
You may not mind McDonald's once in a while, but you don't want that to 
be the only option in your hometown. You want something that captures 
the local culture in your community. That is what local broadcasting 
does. It makes TV in Honolulu different from TV in Hartford or Houston.
  But now the American tradition of local broadcasting is in real 
danger because the FCC is going to change the rules so that these 
stations can be bought out by a single company without any limits. I 
have no doubt this would create a world of sort of nationalized content 
distributed through each of these local companies, with consumers 
having to watch whatever is distributed to them by their national 
headquarters. This is no longer local news, and this is not the 
broadcast media that Americans deserve.

  The third area I want to talk about is broadband access. Right now, 
Americans have widely different levels of internet speed basically 
based on where they live. In some places, you have great broadband 
access, no trouble streaming video, accessing government services 
online, downloading, uploading, but in rural and Tribal communities, 
they are very, very far behind. As the FCC noted, 39 percent of rural 
America and 41 percent of those on Tribal land lack access to advanced 
broadband. Even if they have cell phones with internet access, a mobile 
network will typically offer slower speed than fixed broadband, so they 
can't go online and do the things we can in Washington, DC, or in many

[[Page S6214]]

other cities across the country. So everyone, on a bipartisan basis, 
understands that this needs to change.
  High-speed broadband is the cornerstone to economic development, 
public safety, and quality of life in every community, no matter how 
many people live in your community. The FCC has historically worked so 
that every home, school, and business has had adequate access to the 
internet because that is what it will take to unlock the innovation and 
potential for all Americans.
  The FCC has worked on this issue by setting the bar for what it will 
take to connect more Americans to the internet. There is already a 
threshold in place which says that this is what high-speed internet 
access is, so we know who has it and who doesn't. But instead of 
actually working to get more people broadband, the FCC is working to 
change the definition of broadband so that it looks as if they have 
gotten people more broadband. That way they can say that more Americans 
are covered, even if they have internet service that does not meet 
their needs. In other words, they are not actually solving the problem; 
they are literally just redefining what it means to have access. Rather 
than giving people access, they are papering over the problem that they 
are not solving. This is a real issue, and it is something that the 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee members have worked on 
on a bipartisan basis.
  The way to get more people broadband access is to get more people 
broadband access. It is not to change the rules and to change the 
metrics so that you can come back to the Congress and say: Look, we 
just achieved more access by allowing these companies to claim that 
people are covered who are not.
  The fourth and final concern I want to raise is a little more 
sensitive because, as I said, I like Chairman Pai, and I respect 
Chairman Pai, but he made some comments during his confirmation hearing 
that worried me. I asked if he agreed with the President's comments 
calling the media the enemy of the state. He would not give a direct 
answer.
  I understand that Mr. Pai is a Republican. That is not the problem. I 
understand Republicans will be appointed in a Republican 
administration. I am the former Democratic Party chairman of the State 
of Hawaii, so I understand party loyalty. I respect party loyalty.
  We have a President and a White House that are pushing to blur the 
legal, moral, and ethical boundaries in our Nation's Capital. This is 
not the time to get cute when we ask a question about the rule of law. 
This is not the time to finesse an answer. The only acceptable answer 
is this: I will not let anyone interfere with my work, whether it is 
the President or anyone else, and the media is not the enemy of the 
state. Mr. Pai did not take that opportunity. This was one of a few 
opportunities Mr. Pai had to be unequivocal. The senior Senator from 
New Mexico, if I remember correctly, and other members of the panel, 
sort of gave him a second and third bite at the apple so that he could 
get it right. It was an easy one to get right.
  I understand it is politically complicated, but sometimes you have to 
set aside the politics and just say what is right and do what is right. 
My instinct is that he will not use the FCC to do anything that crosses 
any ethical boundaries that I am worried about, but the fact that he 
will not say so leaves an opening that should not be there.
  The President has tweeted about media companies that give him bad 
coverage. He consistently refers to the media as ``fake news'' media 
and ``garbage'' media and makes unsubstantiated claims about various 
networks and newspapers and threatens to come after them. So it is not 
out of the realm of possibility that this could go beyond some partisan 
talking point from the Democrats in the Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee and into a real crisis.
  I just want to hear from Mr. Pai. He will be confirmed on Monday, but 
I want to hear from Mr. Pai that he does not believe the media is the 
enemy of the state and he will not allow any interference from the 
White House.
  I would like to end by bringing this back to the American people. 
This vote is our chance to stand up for them. There will not be a vote 
on net neutrality on the floor in the next weeks or months, but they 
deserve to keep their faith in local broadcasting, they deserve a free 
and open internet, and they deserve to have adequate access to the 
internet no matter where they live. That is why I have to vote no on 
this nominee.
  I admire Chairman Pai. I like him as a person, but he is the wrong 
leader for the FCC. I urge my colleagues to join me and vote no on his 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I, too, rise today to oppose the 
renomination of Ajit Pai to serve as Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission. I will start my remarks by acknowledging my 
friend, the Senator from Hawaii, and echoing his sentiments about the 
respect I have for Chairman Pai's ability, his skill, his intelligence, 
his dedication, and commitment, but I, too, as a member of the Commerce 
Committee, have sat through testimony from Mr. Pai and watched a number 
of things unfold with regard to policy that is critically important to 
people of New Hampshire and our country. I find that I, too, am in a 
position of being unable to support this nomination.
  The FCC plays a critical role in overseeing our communications 
networks, protecting consumers, and ensuring that our Nation's 
businesses can compete on a level playing field. Unfortunately, 
throughout his tenure at the FCC, and particularly during his time as 
Chairman, Mr. Pai has not demonstrated a commitment to those goals. To 
start, I have real concerns with the Chairman's actions to undermine 
net neutrality and the impact that would have on people in New 
Hampshire and throughout our country.
  A free and open internet is essential to consumers, essential to 
entrepreneurs and innovative small businesses that are the foundation 
of our economic success. Net neutrality is the concept that internet 
service providers should provide equal access to applications and 
content online, and they should not be able to discriminate against 
content and content providers by making certain web pages, 
applications, or videos load faster or slower than others. Put simply, 
net neutrality ensures that even the smallest voices and businesses can 
be heard and can thrive. People and businesses in New Hampshire know 
this. Granite Staters have called and written to my office in support 
of net neutrality, and the FCC has received a recordbreaking number of 
public comments, reaching tens of millions, from people looking to make 
their voices heard on this topic.
  Chairman Pai is not addressing the concerns of Americans who are 
speaking out. Instead, he is listening to big cable companies and 
internet service providers and taking direct aim at net neutrality 
protections. That is unacceptable. Protecting net neutrality is 
essential, but with Chairman Pai at the FCC, these critical rules are 
in danger.
  I also oppose this nomination because Chairman Pai is putting rural 
broadband advancements at stake. Recently, Chairman Pai and the FCC 
released a notice of inquiry that raises questions about its goals, 
suggesting it will consider mobile broadband as an adequate replacement 
for fixed broadband, which would allow speeds that are two-thirds 
slower. For many parts of New Hampshire, mobile is not dependable 
enough or fast enough to meet our economy's needs, promote innovation, 
and connect young students with their homework. We must address the 
challenges that rural communities face in getting access to broadband. 
But by focusing instead on mobile broadband, the Chairman would have us 
leave rural America without a reliable connection.
  Finally, I have concerns about Chairman Pai's ability to adequately 
evaluate the pending Sinclair-Tribune merger that sits before the FCC. 
For decades, our Nation has maintained a policy that limits the number 
of broadcast stations that one company can own nationwide. This policy 
has protected Americans by allowing them to receive robust and fair 
news content about their communities and has provided a diversity of 
voices in the broadcast news media marketplace.

[[Page S6215]]

  This merger would result in Sinclair's ability to reach over 70 
percent of Americans across our country, far exceeding the Commission's 
ownership caps and threatening the diversity in broadcast news that 
Americans deserve and expect.
  Since Chairman Pai took the lead of the FCC, the Commission has 
worked to loosen regulations regarding media ownership, and, in turn, 
Sinclair benefited. As this proposed merger is still under 
consideration, we need someone at the helm of the FCC who will 
thoroughly vet the implications and ensure that it is in the public 
interest. There is too much at stake with this merger, and Chairman 
Pai's actions raise doubts that he can evaluate it impartially.
  We need an FCC that is focused on putting consumers first and 
ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to thrive in the 21st 
century economy. There are simply too many concerns about Chairman 
Pai's record, his ability to express impartiality on key decisions, and 
his goals for Federal Communications Commission priorities. I will vote 
against Chairman Pai's renomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.