[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15231-15240]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session for the consideration of the Erickson 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Ralph 
R. Erickson, of North Dakota, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
Eighth Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10:30 
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
  The Senator from Oregon.


                         Nomination of Ajit Pai

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the President's 
nomination of Ajit Pai to head the Federal Communications Commission.
  My view is that, Mr. Pai will do an enormous amount of damage to one 
of the foundational principles of the internet--net neutrality. I am 
going to outline why that would be a horrendous mistake for our 
country.
  After we came to use the internet and see what an extraordinary asset 
it would be to our country, really beginning in the late 1990s, and 
early 2000s, we laid out what I still consider to be the legal 
foundation for the internet.
  On a bipartisan basis, there was a big effort in the Senate and the 
House to really lay out what were the foundational principles of the 
net, and there were a variety of them. We wanted to make sure that 
folks were not hit with multiple and discriminatory taxes, and that 
they were not taxed on access to the internet. We wrote the digital 
signatures act, which is of enormous benefit to people, for example, in 
the Presiding Officer's home State of Nevada, where they are making 
business transactions. We made a judgment, which some have said has led 
to $1 trillion worth of private wealth for our economy, whereby we said 
that we were not going to expose the small entrepreneur--the person who 
is getting started in the garage--to needless litigation.
  One of those core principles was net neutrality, which, in my view, 
for the reasons that I am going to describe this morning, I think Mr. 
Pai would work long and hard to try to undermine.
  Because so much of the telecommunications debate sounds like a lot of 
complicated lingo, I want to try to describe in something resembling 
English what ``net neutrality'' is. Essentially, ``net neutrality'' 
means that after you have paid your internet access fee, you get to go 
where you want, when you want, and how you want. In a sentence, that is 
what net neutrality is all about, and it is a bedrock principle for 
internet users in the Presiding Officer's home State of Nevada and in 
Oregon and all across the country.
  It locks in equal treatment to accessing the internet.
  We are not going to have some kind of information aristocracy in our 
society whereby the affluent have access to some kind of technological 
treasure trove, and folks who do not have much are kind of stuck with 
what almost resembles dial-up. That is not what we want for 
communications policy in America. We want to give everybody a chance to 
get ahead so that the kids in rural Oregon and rural Nevada have the 
same kind of opportunities as youngsters in Beverly Hills or the Gold 
Coast of Chicago or Palm Beach. We want to make sure everybody has a 
chance to get ahead.
  Mr. Pai says that he is for real net neutrality, and we have tried to 
pin him down on a whole host of policies that really get him to commit 
to the essence of it, but he mostly says a version of what the big 
cable companies say. The big cable companies have come to say: We like 
net neutrality. We are not going to block anything. We are for the 
consumer; we are for the little guy. We just do not want a whole lot of 
government.
  They say that what they really would like is voluntary net 
neutrality.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. There is about as much 
likelihood that the big cable companies will voluntarily subscribe to 
net neutrality as there is the prospect that William Peter Wyden--one 
of my 9-year-old twins, the boy--will voluntarily limit himself to one 
dessert. It is just not going to happen. It is just not going to work. 
Mr. Pai is on the side of the big cable companies. He has a long 
history of putting those companies before the consumers--the big 
corporate players over the small businesses--and pay to play over a 
free and open internet.
  I introduced the first strong net neutrality bill here in the Senate 
in 2006. We all know that back then we were just starting the debate 
about technology policy. The Senate was getting ribbed pretty seriously 
by the late night talk show hosts who said that the internet was a 
series of tubes. So, as I have indicated, what we have tried to do is 
to make sure that if you pay your internet access fee, you get to go 
where you want, when you want, and how you want.
  Net neutrality has been the law of the land, and our economy has 
grown around this leading principle with respect to equal access to 
information and customers. Mr. Pai has said that he wants to take a 
``weed whacker'' to the strong, enforceable net neutrality rules. Right 
away, with his quotes that are on the record, he is talking about 
blowing up this notion of a level playing field, which is so crucial to 
innovation and free speech online and that allows the startups to get 
out of the garage to become the next YouTube and Google and EBay.

[[Page 15232]]

  I want to emphasize that point.
  People talk a lot about technology policy.
  To my colleagues, this tech policy debate is about the little guy who 
wants to be able to get his business out of the garage so that he can 
become the next big guy. Net neutrality gives us the opportunity to 
create opportunities for that small entrepreneur, the person who is a 
small entrepreneur with big dreams.
  Net neutrality prevents your internet service provider from favoring 
one type of content over another. As an example, suppose your internet 
provider has a financial stake in a third-party content site. It could 
ensure that content goes to your home faster and clearer than to the 
homes of its competitors if you did not have real net neutrality--
enforceable, real net neutrality, not something like Mr. Pai wants, 
which is, oh, we will kind of pay lipservice to net neutrality but not 
make it enforceable.
  For example, you could have AT&T deciding to provide free data for 
customers streaming HBO, which would cause more folks to subscribe to 
that service over its competitors and starve other creators of the 
subscribers necessary to create new and innovative content. That is the 
kind of thing that happens if we do not have real net neutrality.
  It even holds true for telehealth providers. Telehealth depends on 
reliable, fast, and low-cost internet coverage to transmit critical 
health information, especially in rural and remote areas--for example, 
the remote monitoring of blood glucose levels in diabetes patients. Net 
neutrality prevents the internet service providers from viewing this 
lifesaving service as a cash cow, thus charging rural hospitals and 
community health centers a premium fee to deliver critical and timely 
healthcare services.
  Not long ago, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a strong 
legal framework that would make sure that the Federal Communications 
Commission had the tools to protect the open internet, and the reality 
was that, then, the Federal Communications Commission and a gentleman 
named Mr. Tom Wheeler, who had a background in the industry, used their 
experience in how companies operated and how they treated consumers to 
make sure that we had constructive, real, and concrete consumer 
protections.
  The reason I feel so strongly about Mr. Pai's nomination is that Mr. 
Pai made it clear with his comments about taking a weed whacker to 
anything enforceable. He is going to roll back the rules, and then he 
is going to claim to be fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
  The reality is that we have strong net neutrality protections in 
place right now. If you vote for Mr. Pai, make no mistake about it, you 
are voting to roll back consumer protection. You are voting to take a 
big step backward for the internet. You are going to hurt the people--
the small business people, the startups--who are dreaming in their 
garage of the chance to be big and who are going to have a lot more 
problems if there is a telecommunications policy that doesn't give them 
a fair shake.
  As I indicated, this notion of a voluntary solution to net neutrality 
is absurd. I talked about it in the context of my own son. It would be 
hilarious if I even suggested to my son that I am going to let him, 
William, voluntarily limit himself to one dessert. He would smile and 
wait until I got out of the room, and he would dig in for some more. 
That is going to be the same thing if we embark on a net neutrality 
policy that says: Let's just trust the big cable companies; the cable 
companies, in their heart of hearts, are all about the little guy. They 
are just going to voluntarily go along with net neutrality because they 
are just that kind of good folks who want to make sure that the little 
guy gets ahead. The fact is, Chairman Pai's track record demonstrates 
that he is not in the consumers' corner.
  Last year the Federal Communications Commission acted on the 
responsibility given to it by the Congress to protect browsing history, 
favored applications, and even the location of broadband users from the 
ISP. During that vote, Mr. Pai voted no. He was, again, with cable 
companies' profits over the American consumers' privacy.
  During the August recess, Mr. Pai began an attempt to really backdoor 
a proposal that would lower the acceptable standard speed of internet 
access in rural areas. That is just wrong. Rural areas are already 
facing huge broadband challenges. Last Saturday night, I was in Oak 
Ridge, OR, which has a population of a little over 3,000. Earlier that 
day, I had been to La Pine, OR, in Central Oregon. Right on the top of 
their agenda is trying to find ways to expand opportunities for better 
communications in rural areas and more opportunities for broadband.
  So in the August recess, when communities like Oak Ridge and La Pine 
want more opportunities in rural communities, we had the Chairman of 
the Federal Communications Commission trying to sneak through a 
proposal that would lower the acceptable standard speed of internet 
access to rural America and hurt rural America. Make no mistake about 
it. That would hurt rural America--the Oak Ridges and La Pines. It is 
just wrong. The Congress mandated that the FCC expand access to high-
speed internet to every American, and Mr. Pai basically said: No, 
slower internet speed is good enough.
  As I indicated, just this last weekend, on Saturday night, we had a 
townhall in Oregon. I am telling you what these small communities are 
telling me about their current frustrations with slow and 
unsatisfactory internet speeds. Mr. Pai is giving a big gift to the 
powerful interests, and their internet speeds are going to get slower 
rather than what rural America wants, which is faster internet so that 
they have more opportunities to participate in the global economy and 
more opportunities to help their kids with their homework. Congress and 
the Federal Communications Commission ought to be working for all to 
have access to high-speed internet and not telling folks in rural 
America that what they have is just good enough.
  Mr. Pai has repeatedly failed on another matter, and that is to act 
even in the face of clear danger to the security of America's mobile 
phones. Despite years of warnings about well-known weaknesses in mobile 
phone networks that allow hackers and spies to track Americans' phones, 
intercept calls and messages, and hack the phones themselves, Mr. Pai 
has taken a hands-off attitude. His Federal Communications Commission 
says it is not going to force wireless carriers to fix the weaknesses, 
and--what a surprise--his traditional answer is that ``voluntary 
measures are going to do enough.'' I disagree because they haven't 
worked.
  We always talk about the role of government. I think this is an area 
that really lends itself to thoughtful discussion because, obviously, 
we don't want government if you can figure out a way to solve a problem 
without it. The voluntary measures have not worked here on these basic 
security issues I have described. The self-regulation approach has 
failed. The Federal Communications Commission has to force the carriers 
to secure their networks and protect America's critical communications 
infrastructure. The failure to act on this security issue means that 
the American people are going to be less safe.
  I close by saying that my view is that net neutrality has sparked the 
flames of innovation and commerce on the internet. Net neutrality has 
been one of the foundational principles that we started working on in 
the late 1990s and in the early part of this century. It was up there 
in terms of importance, like trying to prevent multiple and 
discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce, particularly taxing 
internet access, and the digital signatures law, making sure that you 
couldn't hold somebody personally liable if they were to invest in a 
website or a blog. These were foundational principles that have been of 
enormous benefit to our country, and net neutrality was one of those. I 
guess it would be the fourth in the list of foundational principles 
that we talked about and have been talking about for well over a 
decade.

[[Page 15233]]

  We should be building on net neutrality, not walking it back. I 
believe that what Mr. Pai is talking about is a significant retreat 
from the freedom and openness that the internet is all about.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the confirmation of Mr. Pai. 
Vote in favor of a truly open internet.
  I yield the floor, as I note the Democratic leader is here to speak.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Portman). The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that I be 
able to speak in leader time, and, after my remarks, that the Senator 
from North Dakota be recognized to speak on the judge nomination and be 
given the time she wants, about 10 minutes, and that we move the vote 
to immediately thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.


                    Thanking the Senator from Oregon

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Oregon for 
his outstanding remarks. He has been a leader in keeping the internet 
open and free and making sure that this new highway system, in effect, 
is as free as our old highway system, or the existing highway system, 
to let the big guy and the little guy compete on equal terms. That is 
all we want, and Mr. Pai doesn't seem to get that.
  There is a whole round of appointees from this administration who 
simply side with big corporations no matter what, and this is an 
example of just that.
  So I thank my friend from Oregon for his remarks.
  Mr. President, I have three topics this morning--briefly, healthcare, 
then, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, finally, taxes.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, on healthcare there is a bit of good news. I just 
spoke with Senator Murray this morning. I saw Senator Alexander in the 
gym, as I do just about every morning. Both are two of about the best 
negotiators we have in this body. Both have come to agreements across 
the aisle on many other occasions. They both inform me that they are on 
the verge of a bipartisan healthcare agreement to stabilize markets and 
lower premiums.
  Now, we have had some bipartisan sprouts on healthcare recently. It 
is time for those sprouts to flower, and I am hopeful they will. I told 
Patty Murray that she has my faith and confidence. She has the freedom 
to cut the best deal she can, and I hope the leadership will tell the 
same to Senator Alexander.
  It was widely reported, before the Graham-Cassidy bill was withdrawn, 
that there was pressure on Senator Alexander to pull back. Well, that 
is over. Let's all come together. Our healthcare system needs it, and 
our constituents need it. They don't want premiums to go up and 
coverage to go down, and it would be a great start for some 
bipartisanship in this place, which I hope we can continue on more 
issues.


          Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery Effort

  Mr. President, on Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we know 
about the crisis. Just looking at the pictures breaks your heart. We 
hear the stories of people desperately needing their medicine and 
diabetics needing insulin, which can't be refrigerated because there is 
no electricity to keep the refrigeration going. There are people dying 
right now because they can't get the medical attention they need, and, 
of course, there is a need for food, water, power, and transportation. 
It is awful.
  Yesterday, Leader Pelosi and I met with Gen. Lori Robinson. It felt 
nice, amid this devastation, to see a woman have four stars on her 
shoulder. She is a four-star general in the Air Force, and she is head 
of the U.S. Northern Command. She is the military person in charge.
  We met with her to get an update on the Department of Defense's work 
in assisting the islands. It was evident from our conversation that, 
while the military is increasing the amount of resources it is sending 
to the island, there is a lack of command and control about how those 
resources are distributed. In other words, they probably have enough 
food, they probably have enough gasoline--that is what the Governor of 
Puerto Rico said today--but they can't get it to the places it needs to 
go. Part of it is because they need transportation--trucks and things--
but a lot of it is because there is no one there to make sure. Puerto 
Rico's command and control has been decimated by this storm as well. 
People can't get to the places they are supposed to go. They don't have 
their phones, et cetera.
  I spoke with Senator Rubio this morning in the gym as well. He had 
just recently visited Puerto Rico. He had seen the devastation 
firsthand, and he told me the same--that Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
Islands are struggling, and they need help fast. His visit to Puerto 
Rico confirmed this idea that we really need command and control.
  Well, there is no better command and control organization than our 
military, and we need our military to start aiding Puerto Rico in the 
command and control sense, as well as in the shipping of supplies, 
food, and the other kinds of things they need.
  Puerto Rico needs help fast. They need personnel to direct the 
supplies and resources on the ground. All the aid in the world will be 
ineffective if it doesn't go where it is needed to go. So I joined 
Senator Cantwell, the ranking member on the Energy Committee, which has 
jurisdiction in many ways here, and Senator Nelson, who cares a great 
deal about Puerto Rico and is from Florida, nearby, and 30 other 
Senators in sending a letter to the Trump administration that contains 
a list of needed resources and personnel to coordinate our relief 
efforts.
  It appears there will not be a request for emergency supplemental 
appropriations this week. We hope it comes very soon.
  Mr. President, we cannot forget the utter devastation facing the 3.5 
million American citizens in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. I have 
been on this Earth now for quite a few years, and I have never seen 
such devastation anywhere in the United States or its territories. So 
we need to act, and we need to act quickly. Command and control, which 
our military can help supply, should be at the top of the list.


                               Tax Reform

  Finally, Mr. President, on taxes, yesterday President Trump and 
Republican leaders laid out their tax plan, sharing the first sketchy 
set of details with the American people about what they want to change 
in our Tax Code. Any serious analysis of their proposal will leave you 
with one conclusion: President Trump and the Republicans have crafted a 
massive tax break for the very wealthy in our country.
  Welfare is supposed to take care of the poor. This plan takes care of 
the rich. Plain and simple, the Republican plan is ``wealthfare,'' the 
opposite of welfare. It is designed to take care of the rich. It 
repeals the estate tax, which goes to so few people in such large 
amounts of money, slashes the corporate rate, creates enormous tax 
loopholes for wealthy hedge fund managers in the form of a rate cut on 
passthroughs, and it lowers the rate, amazingly enough, on the top 
bracket of the wealthiest Americans while raising the tax rate on those 
at the bottom of the income scale. Who would have thought?
  Secretary Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and the President himself have said: We 
want to help the middle class. Then the first thing they come out 
with--again, we don't know all the details--lowers the top rate on the 
wealthiest and raises the bottom rate on the working families, which is 
the opposite of what they are saying.
  On the estate tax, the bottom line is that only people whose estates 
are above $10 million pay a nickel of estate tax--only those. It is a 
handful. We are compiling how many people in each State have paid the 
estate tax for the last 5 years. Everyone in their State will see how 
few people are affected. You know, if someone has a big farm and maybe 
it is $12 or $15 million and

[[Page 15234]]

they don't want to sell it--pass it onto their kids--I am willing to 
make an exception for that. I think most people will, but that doesn't 
justify repealing the entire estate tax.
  Moving on to corporate taxes, there is a difference between the big 
corporations and small corporations. The big corporations right now are 
making record profits. Let's say the thousand biggest are making record 
profits. They have more money than they have ever had. According to a 
study--I believe it is by Goldman Sachs, which is hardly a leftwing 
think tank--they are paying the lowest percentage of their profits as 
taxes in a very long while. Big corporate America is flush with money. 
They are not using it to create jobs. Why in God's Name anyone thinks, 
after giving them more money through a tax break, all of a sudden they 
are going to start creating jobs when they are not doing it now is 
beyond me.
  It is different for small businesses. We Democrats understand that 
small businesses need a break. We will work with our colleagues to do 
it. But even this passthrough--the biggest benefit is going to be 
wealthy lawyers and hedge fund managers, who will then pay an 
individual tax rate of 25 percent while so many others who have much 
less wealth are paying more in taxes.
  So the President gets up and says this is a tax break for the middle 
class. I believe he said this morning that he will not benefit from it. 
Please, let's have some honesty here. If you really believe giving tax 
breaks to the wealthiest people and the biggest corporations is going 
to create jobs, then have the courage to say it. Don't fudge it.
  President Trump said that his plan would create a middle-class 
miracle. I think it would be a miracle if it helped the middle class, 
given the numbers I have seen. While the tax plan doubles the standard 
deduction--that is one of the points where they say they help the 
middle class--it eliminates the personal exemption. The standard 
deduction is $12,500; personal exemption is $6,000. Figure it out, my 
friends. If you are a family of three or more, you lose, not gain. 
Three times $6,000 is $18,000; that is opposed to a $12,500 standard 
exemption. It doesn't make sense.
  Oh, and how about this one: The personal exemption is not the only 
one gone. State and local deductibility--I predict that is going to be 
a downfall of this plan. I know the ideologues say: Let's go after the 
States that charge taxes. Let me tell you, there are 40 or 50 
Republican Congressmen from well-to-do suburban districts in high-tax 
States--New York, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, 
Maryland--whose constituents will be clobbered by removing State and 
local deductibility. They will be clobbered. The $12,500 they gain in 
the standard deduction, minus what they lose in the individual 
deduction, is far less than they pay in State and local taxes in those 
districts.
  We are going to be watching them like a hawk. I will tell my New York 
Republican friends from those well-to-do suburban and upstate 
districts: You are going to be hurting your constituents if you vote 
for a plan that gets rid of State and local deductibility. The eyes of 
America will be on you, and certainly the eyes of each State.
  How about this one: They eliminate the deduction for extraordinary 
medical expenses. If you have a child with cancer, it is hard to pay 
for it, and your insurance covers some, but you are not going to get a 
tax break for shelling out money for that extra medicine or that extra 
MRI scan--no.
  So the Republican game plan gives a few crumbs to the middle class--
and many in the middle class will pay more in taxes, a few hundred off 
taxes maybe--and at the same time gives a huge break to corporations 
and the superwealthy. The American people will not buy it. This is not 
2000 or 1982, my Republican friends. We have huge problems where the 
wealthy are doing great, and the middle class and the poor are doing 
badly.
  The American people will not buy tax breaks for the rich. They will 
not buy it. Seventy percent of Americans already think our system 
favors the wealthy, and the Republican tax plan drops an anvil on the 
scales of our tax system, tipping them even further in favor of the 
wealthy. The American people will not be for that.
  What about the deficit? We hear about deficits every time there is a 
new program. This dwarfs any spending program in terms of the deficit 
that we have enacted over the last several years--$5 to $7 trillion of 
deficit. What has happened to all the Republicans who talk about 
wanting to be deficit neutral when it comes to spending? Is that out 
the window? We will see.
  Let me tell you something that really got under my skin--sorry to my 
colleague from North Dakota. I am just agitated about this in a good 
way.
  This morning, the chief economic adviser to President Trump, Gary 
Cohn, said the administration believes it ``can pay for the entire tax 
cut through growth'' by using a dynamic scoring model. Gary Cohn comes 
from Goldman Sachs. If he used that funny kind of math at Goldman Sachs 
the way he is using it here in Washington, he would have been kicked 
out of that firm a long time ago. Gary Cohn should know better; Gary 
Cohn does know better.
  Let me repeat what I said yesterday: Dynamic scoring is fake math. 
Paying for tax cuts with growth is fake math. We know it is fake math; 
we have real-world examples. The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts were 
promising they would pay for themselves through economic growth. It is 
the same thing you hear from the Club for Growth and some of my 
colleagues.
  Some dynamic scoring models at the time predicted the 2001 and 2003 
tax breaks would grow the economy so much it would nearly wipe out the 
national debt, but what happened? I heard the Club for Growth leader 
get on TV and say: Well, there may be a deficit in the short run, but 
after 10 years it will all be taken care of. Ten years after the Bush 
tax cut, CBO estimated the Bush tax cuts added $1.6 trillion to the 
deficit.
  How about the example of the great State of Kansas? Governor 
Brownback slashed the top rate. He exempted passthrough businesses. It 
was a real-life experiment in a Republican State, similar to what 
President Trump announced. Brownback's backers used dynamic scoring 
models to estimate that his tax cuts would generate $323 million in new 
revenue by 2018. Guess what happened. It added so much money to their 
deficit over 4 years that they have had to figure out ways to raise 
taxes now, just as Ronald Reagan did in 1986. So this idea that the 
administration can pay for a $5 to $7 trillion tax cut through growth 
is simply selling a bill of goods using fake, fake math.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to give my 
strong support and ask my colleagues to support the confirmation of 
Judge Ralph Erickson to fill the North Dakota vacancy on the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This is a seat that the U.S. 
Judicial Conference has deemed a judicial emergency, as it has been 
empty for almost 900 days. Being nominated to a seat on the U.S. 
circuit court of appeals is an honor and a privilege, virtually 
unmatched in the legal profession.
  After reviewing Judge Erickson's record and talking to his colleagues 
and the people who have worked with him and appeared before him back in 
North Dakota, I am very proud to come to the floor this morning and 
offer my strong support for his nomination to the Eighth Circuit. When 
Judge Erickson was nominated and confirmed to his current seat on the 
U.S. District Court for North Dakota, it was with the support of our 
two great former Senators and my good friends, Byron Dorgan and Kent 
Conrad. Judge Erickson has certainly upheld their faith and trust in 
his abilities as a district court judge, and I am confident he will 
uphold my faith and my trust in his ability as he moves to the Eighth 
Circuit.
  Judge Erickson has a long history of commitment to the legal 
profession and the State of North Dakota, first through his service on 
the State court

[[Page 15235]]

and, since 2003, as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District 
of North Dakota. Very few lawyers can make such a long-term commitment 
to public service, and his record certainly reflects his belief that 
when a lawyer is called to serve for the greater good, they should 
answer that call. I hope Judge Erickson is able to instill this sense 
of commitment to public service in aspiring young lawyers whom he will 
come to meet and whom he will be able to influence through his example.
  A nominee for the North Dakota seat on the Eighth Circuit must have 
experience in working with Indian Country, given the number of Tribes 
and the Indian land that are contained within the jurisdiction of the 
Eighth Circuit. During his career and at his hearing before the 
Judiciary Committee, Judge Erickson has shown an in-depth understanding 
of Tribal sovereignty issues and a recognition of the challenges and 
disparities in the treatment of Native Americans under the law when 
they are arrested and charged for crimes in Indian Country.
  Judge Erickson has been an advocate for equal treatment of Native 
Americans under the law. He also serves as the chair of the U.S. 
Sentencing Commission's Tribal Issues Advisory Group. I have no doubt 
that Judge Erickson will bring this knowledge and understanding of 
Tribal issues, sovereignty, and treaties with him to the Eighth 
Circuit.
  The best judges always have been people who can truly understand and 
bring to the bench a sense of empathy. Judge Erickson has used some of 
his own struggles and challenges during the course of his life to 
inform his own views and to give counsel to those who come before him 
as he uses his own personal struggles as an example. It takes a really 
big person to recognize and learn from their failings and to use them 
to help others. I admire him greatly for that.
  During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Judge Erickson showed an openness and frankness in 
responding to questions and discussing his past struggles. That was 
refreshing, illuminating, and honestly all too rare here. I believe he 
impressed my colleagues on that committee greatly with his willingness 
to be so forthcoming and so honest. That is why they unanimously 
reported his nomination out of the committee.
  It is a tremendous honor to be on the floor of the U.S. Senate before 
Judge Erickson's confirmation vote. I am here today to give my highest 
recommendation in support of his nomination to the U.S. Circuit Court 
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I, again, urge all of my colleagues' 
thoughtful consideration and evaluation and favorable endorsement of 
his confirmation.
  Thank you so much.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Ralph R. Erickson, of North Dakota, to be United States 
     Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.
         Mitch McConnell, Orrin G. Hatch, James Lankford, Jerry 
           Moran, Johnny Isakson, John Thune, Thom Tillis, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, Mike Crapo, James E. Risch, Mike Rounds, 
           John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Chuck Grassley, John 
           Boozman, John Hoeven, Rob Portman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Ralph R. Erickson, of North Dakota, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Strange).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) 
and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 95, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Ex.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--1

       
     Warren
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cochran
     Franken
     Menendez
     Strange
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 95, the nays are 1.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1808

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, in 2 days, unless Congress acts, the 
Federal Perkins Loan Program--the Nation's oldest Federal student loan 
program--will expire, leaving thousands of students with one fewer 
option to help them afford a higher education.
  Since 1958, the Perkins Loan Program has existed with broad 
bipartisan support and has provided millions of students a stronger 
path to the middle class.
  In the 2016 to 2017 academic year, the program has served more than 
770,000 students with financial need across more than 1,400 
institutions of higher education. In my home State of Wisconsin alone, 
Perkins provided aid to more than 23,000 students who are working hard 
to achieve their dreams.
  Colleges and universities are invested in Perkins. This program 
operates through campus-based revolving funds that combine prior 
Federal investments with significant institutional resources. While 
Congress stopped appropriating new funds for Perkins more than a decade 
ago, these schools continue to invest in this program because they know 
it works, and the campus-based nature of the program allows them to 
target aid to students they know are in the greatest financial need.
  I am here to call on all of my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the extension of this critical program and investment in our students 
across America.
  Two years ago, we allowed this important program to lapse, but thanks 
to the tireless efforts of students, institutions, advocates, and a 
bicameral, bipartisan majority in support of Perkins, we were able to 
advance a compromise that ensured that this source of support continued 
to be available to students in need.
  Once again, we are facing a deadline. Once again, there is strong 
bipartisan support for extending the Perkins Loan Program. Last week, 
Senators Portman, Casey, and Collins joined me in introducing the 
Perkins Loan Program Extension Act, which would provide for a 2-year 
extension. My fellow Wisconsinite, Representative Mark Pocan, together 
with New York Representative Elise Stefanik, have introduced a House 
companion bill that is supported by over 225 of their colleagues--a 
bipartisan majority in that Chamber.

[[Page 15236]]

  I am here to call on my colleagues to act once again and support a 2-
year extension of the Perkins Loan Program. And while I look forward to 
a broader conversation about improving Federal supports for students as 
we look to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, we cannot once again 
sit by and watch it expire as America's students are left with 
uncertainty.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 1808, a bill to extend the 
Federal Perkins Loan Program for 2 years; that the Senate proceed to 
its immediate consideration and the bill be considered read a third 
time and passed, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to 
explain my reason for the objection.
  First, I would like to say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I am 
grateful for her work on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, where she is a valuable, diligent, and constructive member. 
We work on a great many things together and have agreed to very many 
things. However, we disagree on this one, and here is why. Let me 
summarize it at the beginning of my remarks and then explain it with a 
little more detail.
  No one who has a Perkins loan today loses that loan, period. So if 
you are a student anywhere in the country and you have a Perkins loan 
for this year, you don't lose that loan, period.
  Second, no one who has a Perkins loan for next year loses that loan 
because no one has one. They were ended 2 years ago. Every student was 
told in his or her financial aid information that the Perkins Loan 
Program ends this year, so no one could expect to have one next year. 
No one has been granted one for next year, so no one who has a loan is 
losing a loan.
  Why did we, in December of 2015--2 years ago--reach a bipartisan 
agreement to sunset, or end, the Perkins Loan Program in 2 years, which 
is the end of this week? In that agreement, we allowed graduate 
students to receive Perkins loans for 1 additional year and 
undergraduates to receive Perkins loans for 2 additional years. It was 
made clear at that time--2 years ago--that this was the last time the 
program would be extended, but we wanted to have a smooth transition, 
and we did not want students and colleges and universities to be 
surprised. That agreement, therefore, included many requirements for 
institutions of higher education to inform students over the last 2 
years that the Perkins Loan Program would end on September 30 of this 
year, which is the end of this week. That agreement also set policies 
to make the sunsetting of Perkins loans as smooth as possible for 
students. The expiration of this loan program was not and should not 
have been a surprise. It has not received any appropriation since the 
year 2004, and the U.S. Department of Education reminded institutions 
that it was ending the program this year.
  Now, why? Why are we ending the program? Why did we agree to do that 
2 years ago, and why have the last three Presidents recommended that we 
end it--President Obama, President Trump, and President Bush?
  The Department of Education estimated that in the 2016 to 2017 school 
year--that is the school year that just ended--the Perkins Loan Program 
provided less than $800 million in new Perkins loans to about 300,000 
recipients. That may seem like a lot, but by comparison, the Department 
estimated that the Federal Government disbursed over $22 billion to 
almost 7 million undergraduate students in the Stafford Subsidized Loan 
Program, or the regular Direct Loan Program. The Perkins loan--a 
separate loan--provides an average loan of roughly $2,000, and it 
illustrates the complicated mess in which students find themselves 
because of our Federal student aid system today.
  The Perkins loans have a higher interest rate than other loans that 
are available to students today. The interest rate is 5 percent, 
compared with 4.45 percent for undergraduate loans. And students who 
have a Perkins loan aren't eligible for certain programs that exist for 
students with other loans, such as the income-based repayment programs 
and the public service loan forgiveness programs, which help students 
manage repayment of their loans. Those aren't available to students 
with a Perkins loan. The default rate for Perkins loans is higher than 
for the Stafford loan.
  The bill which the Senator from Wisconsin has offered would cost 
taxpayers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $900 million 
for a 2-year extension. If we were to extend the program over 10 years, 
it would cost $6.5 billion, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office. The bill does not have an offset, so these billions of dollars 
would only serve to add to the $20 trillion Federal debt we already 
have.
  I object because I think it is time for our country, through 
legislation by this Congress, to move on to a simplified Federal 
student aid program that has only one Federal loan for students, one 
Federal grant for students, and one work-study program for students.
  As I have spoken often about on this floor, along with Senator Bennet 
from Colorado, we would like to reduce the application form for those 
Federal grants and loans called FAFSA--the dreaded FAFSA which 20 
million students and their families fill out every year. We would like 
to reduce that from 108 questions to 2 or 5 or 10 questions.
  We need a much simpler program for Federal student loans, and the end 
of the Perkins Loan Program is a small step toward that end.
  As I mentioned, President Bush recommended that the program end, 
President Obama recommended that the program be changed and folded, in 
effect, into the regular Direct Student Loan Program, and President 
Trump has the same position.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues, including the Senator 
from Wisconsin, on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 
later this year, when we can work together to improve our Federal 
student loan programs and our grant programs, find ways to simplify 
them, make it easier and cheaper for students to attend college, and to 
help students pay those loans off, after they get them, in a fair and 
simpler way.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I am certainly disappointed that my 
effort to extend the Perkins Loan Program today was just blocked by my 
Republican colleague, but I want to say that it is an honor to serve on 
the HELP Committee, where we do some very impressive bipartisan work.
  I understand the Senator's concern about the program and his belief 
that we must simplify. I share his desire to work on a broader 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and I look forward to that 
broader conversation about our Federal financial aid programs. However, 
I do not think it is right or fair to end this program, with nothing to 
replace it, to the detriment of students in need.
  Also, I cannot agree that the compromise we hammered out 2 years ago 
was an agreement to wind down the program. I guess it is the 
perspective that we each bring to this subject, because I believed we 
were acting to ensure that the Perkins Loan Program could continue 
until we could discuss changes, improvements, and reforms to it and all 
Federal financial aid programs as part of broader legislation to 
improve higher education. We have yet to get to that bigger 
conversation, and it would once again be unfair to let this program end 
now without the benefit of a holistic assessment of the many ways the 
Federal Government helps to make college affordable for students across 
this country.
  I will continue to fight to extend this support for America's 
students, and I hope the chairman of the committee

[[Page 15237]]

will once again work with me and the bipartisan supporters of this 
program to find a path forward for the Perkins Loan Program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks because I 
see the Senator from Mississippi is here.
  Of course I will be glad to work with the Senator from Wisconsin. The 
fact is, 2 years ago we agreed to end the program. The graduate loans 
ended last year, and the undergraduate loans end this year. Everybody 
was told about it.
  Every student who wants a loan can get a direct student loan from the 
government at a lower rate, with better repayment programs and better 
payment provisions than the Perkins loan. So no one is losing a loan, 
and everyone can get a better loan if they apply for a direct loan.
  We do need a simpler program, and we need to simplify the application 
process for applying for the loans and grants and for paying them off.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                         Nomination of Ajit Pai

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, later on today, the Senate will move to a 
vote to advance the nomination of Ajit Pai to become Chairman of the 
Federal Communications Commission. I rise today in strong, enthusiastic 
support for confirming Chairman Pai as the permanent Chairman of the 
FCC.
  In the 9 short months since Donald Trump chose Mr. Pai to serve as 
the FCC's Acting Chairman, he has restored confidence in the agency's 
ability to do its work on behalf of the American people and within the 
rule of law.
  He is working to establish the light-touch regulatory framework that 
allowed the internet to become the marvel of the modern age, keeping it 
free and open for consumers, innovators, and providers. Internet 
technology will continue to thrive if we keep the heavy hand of 
government away from the controls.
  Chairman Pai recognizes the need to close the digital divide between 
our Nation's rural and urban communities. I am working closely with him 
and with other members of the Commission to remove barriers to internet 
connectivity that exist in my home State of Mississippi and across the 
country. Without broadband access, these rural communities could lose 
out on critical jobs, economic development, and many other 
opportunities borne out of the thriving internet economy.
  Mr. Pai has already proven he is capable of being an exemplary FCC 
Chairman who will fight for the unserved and underserved Americans.
  As Acting Chairman, Mr. Pai has overseen the adoption of Mobility 
Fund Phase II rules supporting universal service. He has sought the 
advice of experts for the most effective broadband deployment, and he 
has encouraged the development of better networks, lower costs, and 
relief from regulatory burdens.
  Americans are being well-served by a leader like Chairman Ajit Pai, 
who understands the strong connection between technology and 
innovation. Mr. Pai understands how high-speed internet can 
revolutionize small businesses and benefit local economies. He 
understands the importance of consumer protections and has already 
instituted proposals and rules that would benefit public safety.
  I hope Mr. Pai will also continue to hold the FCC to the highest 
standards of transparency. His decision to make proposals and orders 
accessible to the public prior to the Commission's vote on them was a 
positive action.
  The FCC will continue to be in good hands with Mr. Pai as Chairman 
and when the Senate votes later on today to move this nomination along. 
I urge my colleagues to vote yes and eventually to vote yes for his 
confirmation.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the 
provisions of rule XXII, at 12:15 p.m., all postcloture time be 
considered expired on the Erickson nomination and that, if confirmed, 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; further, 
that the Senate then resume consideration of the Pai nomination and the 
time until 1:45 p.m. be equally divided prior to a cloture vote on the 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, 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. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Nomination of Ajit Pai

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today we begin debate on a position in our 
government that impacts the daily lives of every single American. If 
you use a telephone, connect to the internet, watch television, and pay 
a big cable company to do all of those things, then you need to know 
who Ajit Pai is.
  President Trump nominated Ajit Pai to be the Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission. While Ajit Pai has devoted many years to 
public service, I cannot support his nomination. Under Mr. Pai's short 
tenure, he has made the FCC stand for ``forgetting consumers and 
competition.''
  Let's take a look at who is getting a piece of the FCC pie under 
Chairman Pai. It is American consumers on the one hand versus big 
corporations on the other hand. Let's take a piece of this pie and 
determine who is getting that first slice of what is going on at the 
Federal Communications Commission.
  Let's look at net neutrality. Net neutrality is the basic principle 
that says that all internet traffic is treated equal. Net neutrality 
ensures that internet service providers like AT&T, Charter, Verizon, 
and Comcast do not block, slow down, censor, or prioritize internet 
traffic.
  If Ajit Pai gets his way, a handful of big broadband companies will 
serve as gatekeepers to the internet. Fewer voices, less choice, no 
competition, but more profits for the big broadband companies--that is 
Pai's formula. Yet it is today's net neutrality rules that ensure that 
those with the best ideas, not merely the best funded ideas, can thrive 
in the 21st-century economy. It is net neutrality that has been the 
internet's chief governing principle since its inception.
  Consider that today essentially every company is an internet company. 
In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this 
country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That is 
$25 billion of investment. Half of all venture capital in America went 
toward internet-specific and software companies--half of all venture 
capital.
  To meet America's insatiable demand for broadband internet, the U.S. 
broadband and telecommunications industry invested more than $87 
billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is the highest rate of 
annual investment in the last 10 years.
  So we have hit a sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless 
technologies is very high. Job creation is very high. Venture capital 
investment in online startups is very high. That is why more than 22 
million Americans wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to 
make their voices heard about net neutrality. They do not want it 
repealed. Yet Chairman Pai's proposal would decimate the FCC's open 
internet order.
  Chairman Pai has said: ``We need to fire up the weed whacker'' to net 
neutrality rules. Do we really want a leader at the Federal 
Communications Commission who, ultimately, is going to implement the 
agenda of the big broadband companies, which want to crush competition, 
reduce choice, and then make consumers pay more?

[[Page 15238]]

  So the first slice of this pie of killing net neutrality goes to the 
big corporations, and the losers are the consumers.
  Let's go to the next slice of the FCC pie. Let's see where that goes 
as these decisions are being made. The next issue is, in fact, 
broadband privacy.
  Chairman Pai has actively supported efforts to allow broadband 
providers to use, share, and sell your sensitive information without 
consumer consent. In 2016, Chairman Pai voted against commonsense 
broadband privacy protections that gave consumers meaningful control 
over their sensitive information. When he assumed the FCC chairmanship, 
Ajit Pai stopped the implementation of data security protections, which 
would have ensured that broadband providers better protect the 
information they collect about their users. Can you imagine that? 
Chairman Pai stopped protections that would improve data security.
  I have 143 million reasons as to why that was a bad idea. Just this 
month, Equifax was subjected to a cyber attack that compromised the 
personally identifiable information of 143 million consumers. The 
American public wants more protection, not less. Yet what does Chairman 
Pai do? He effectively eliminates the very data security protections 
that consumers need to protect their sensitive information. That is 
just plain wrong.
  Just a few weeks later, Mr. Pai supported congressional Republicans' 
efforts to rescind the Federal Communications Commission's broadband 
privacy protections. Now your broadband provider can relentlessly 
collect and sell your sensitive web browsing history without your 
consent.
  You may wonder why Chairman Pai would actively support efforts to 
undermine the privacy of American consumers. The answer is simple. He 
wants that slice of the pie to go to the biggest corporations. How do 
they use it? They take that data--your personal data, the information 
you put online--and just sell it without your permission in order to 
make money for the big corporations. Once again, rather than consumers, 
the big corporations get the benefit of that decision at the Federal 
Communications Commission.
  Let's take a look at the next issue. The next issue goes to the 
question of mergers, the mergers of big telecommunications companies.
  The Sinclair deal has led to a proposal to merge with Tribune Media, 
granting one company an unprecedented market power of over 200 
broadcast stations around the country. In order to help Sinclair, Ajit 
Pai reinstated what most consider to be an antiquated rule, the UHF 
discount, to pave the way for the merger. The UHF discount makes the 
FCC count only half of the stations on certain frequencies toward 
companies' ownership percentages. This merger would allow Sinclair to 
reach into 72 percent of American households, but with the discount, 
the FCC counts it as only 45 percent. Putting this discount back on the 
books is Chairman Pai's first step to helping Sinclair stay within the 
national ownership cap of 39 percent.
  What will be the impact of this massive telecommunications mega-
merger? Less local news, sports, and weather that millions of Americans 
count on today. It will lead to the continued squeezing out of 
independent programmers, and it will mean higher prices for consumers. 
What signal does approving this merger reveal? It reveals that the FCC 
and Ajit Pai have put out the welcome mat for the consolidation of 
other communications companies.
  So this third slice, once again, goes to corporations and not to 
consumers. They are left out in the cold.
  Let's look at the fourth slice and see what happens with that at the 
Federal Communications Commission under the approval of Ajit Pai's 
nomination on the floor of the Senate. The next slice is one that deals 
with the education rate, or the E-rate.
  The E-rate has proven to be exceptional in linking up schools and 
libraries to the internet. We went from a country in 1996 in which only 
14 percent of K-12 classrooms had internet access to a near ubiquitous 
deployment today. The E-rate has ensured that students from working-
class neighborhoods can connect just like students from more affluent 
communities. The E-rate democratizes access to the opportunities and 
technologies that lead to bright futures. Over $44 billion to date has 
been committed nationwide.
  Again, Ajit Pai does not take that perspective. At his confirmation 
hearing in July, I explicitly asked him whether he would commit to 
preserving the success of this bipartisan program and protecting the 
funding level or whether he would make programmatic changes that could 
undermine or weaken the E-rate. He would not make this commitment to 
maintain current funding for E-rate.
  Students and library users around the country will not be able to 
afford this slice of the pie. Once again, consumers will lose and 
corporations will win.
  Now we go to the final slice of that communications pie at the FCC.
  Telecommunication is the great equalizer, but a household with no 
access to basic telecommunications services could lose educational and 
employment opportunities as well as emergency services. That is why the 
FCC's Lifeline Program is truly a lifeline for millions of Americans 
who are able to connect to the world. In Massachusetts alone, more than 
180,000 low-income Bay Staters rely on the Lifeline Program to access 
voice and internet service.
  The value of this universal service has always been a bedrock of our 
telecommunications policy. Yet one of Ajit Pai's first actions as FCC 
Chairman was to undermine Lifeline and make it more difficult for low-
income people to access affordable broadband. I was dismayed by his 
decision to abruptly revoke the recognition of nine additional 
companies as Lifeline broadband providers just weeks after they were 
approved. Mr. Pai's action did nothing but unfairly punish low-income 
consumers by limiting choice.
  So the final slice, again, goes to the Federal Communications 
Commission's supporting corporations and not supporting consumers.
  That is the pie--the FCC pie--as it is put together on net 
neutrality, on privacy, on mergers, on E-rate, and on Lifeline. It is 
all the same. The FCC winds up standing for forgetting consumers and 
competition. That is the era that we are now in, and it will only 
intensify as each day, week, and month goes by. That is why I am 
recommending a ``no'' vote on Ajit Pai as the Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission.
  Which side are we going to be on--that of the consumers or 
corporations? Are we going to side with innovators? Are we going to 
side with those who are trying to continue to take these platforms of 
dynamic change in our society for consumers, for entrepreneurs or are 
we going to allow for a closing of this revolution?
  This is the era in which we live in the 21st century. This is the 
choice that people must make. In which direction are we going?
  I urge a ``no'' vote by my colleagues on Ajit Pai's nomination. Of 
all of the things that we are going to do this year, this is very near 
the top of the list. In many ways, this telecommunications revolution 
is the organizing principle of our lives here in the United States and 
around the planet, and we have to make sure that we are heading in the 
right direction--more openness, more competition, more consumer 
protection, more privacy protection, and more access in libraries and 
schools to these technologies, not fewer and fewer and fewer and fewer. 
It is just the wrong direction to head in. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

[[Page 15239]]




      Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery Effort and FAA 
                            Reauthorization

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the people of Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands have been hit especially hard by powerful hurricanes. As 
I said earlier this week, the Senate will continue to work with FEMA, 
the Department of Defense, and the rest of the administration to help 
in the recovery, just as we have in Texas, Florida, and across the 
Southeast. We are eager to hear more soon about what additional 
resources will be necessary.
  The American people are stepping up, too, just as they always do, and 
so are the brave men and women of our military.
  This week, 70 soldiers and 8 aircraft from Kentucky's own 101st 
Airborne Combat Aviation Brigade deployed from Fort Campbell to Puerto 
Rico to support hurricane relief operations. These soldiers will join 
the larger joint force effort, which includes elements of the 26th 
Marine Expeditionary Unit, medical support teams, medevac aircraft, and 
elements from the Army Corps of Engineers.
  Kentucky is similarly proud of the men and women of its Air and Army 
National Guard who have worked to provide relief in the Virgin Islands, 
Puerto Rico, as well as in Texas where, according to recent reports, 
their efforts helped save more than 300 lives in the wake of Hurricane 
Harvey.
  We are all proud of their efforts, but we should not forget that 
disasters of these proportions typically require a response from nearly 
every arm of the Federal Government. The FAA plays a critical role as 
well.
  As we all know, the FAA's authority to collect and spend money from 
the aviation trust fund is set to expire on September 30, this week. 
These are the resources that fund repairs and replacement parts for our 
air traffic control system. Even absent a crisis, it would be 
irresponsible to let this lapse.
  We have read in recent days that air traffic in and out of Puerto 
Rico has already been limited because of damage done to radar, 
navigational aids, and other equipment. The Governor of Puerto Rico 
reports that air traffic control capacity is only at about 20 percent 
of normal.
  This critical air safety equipment needs repair. The FAA reports that 
failure to act on the reauthorization would leave them without 
sufficient funding in the accounts necessary for replacement parts, 
equipment, and supplies. They would have only enough funding to cover 
salary costs for these workers for about 1 week.
  These American territories are suffering. What they need right now is 
aid and assistance from the air, not a manufactured crisis from 
Washington on top of everything else. The House of Representatives will 
soon pass legislation that reauthorizes the FAA. It will help open up 
the air space to that aid so that it can get to where it is needed 
most.
  The House bill goes further by authorizing tax relief for individuals 
and businesses affected by the recent hurricanes in Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands, and Texas and Florida, as well, because these disaster 
victims should not suffer a tax bill on top of their losses. We need to 
pass that legislation here in the Senate without further delay.


                         Nomination of Ajit Pai

  Madam President, on another matter, the Senate is considering two 
qualified nominees today. One is the sitting Chairman of the FCC, Ajit 
Pai.
  Chairman Pai has led a fascinating life, one punctuated by hard work 
and success. It had its beginnings in Buffalo. It traced a line through 
Canada. It unfolded in the small town of Parsons, KS, where Chairman 
Pai grew up with his parents, first-generation immigrants from Southern 
India. It was on to Harvard after that and then the University of 
Chicago for his law degree.
  Pai's resume prior to his appointment as a member of the FCC is as 
varied as it is impressive. He clerked for a Federal judge. He worked 
in the Justice Department's Antitrust and Legal Policy Divisions. He 
gained practical experience in the private sector. He served here in 
the Senate as committee staff. He even won a Marshall fellowship. He 
also worked in several positions within the FCC itself.
  When President Obama nominated Pai to serve as an FCC Commissioner 
back in 2011, the Senate confirmed him by a voice vote.
  When the Senate considers his nomination again today, I hope Senators 
will come together to give him strong support one more time. After all, 
it is no wonder why President Trump chose to elevate him to FCC 
Chairman earlier this year. He understands the communications industry 
from nearly every angle, considering his impressive resume. He 
understands the needs of rural communities in States like Kentucky, 
thanks to his own rural background. His dedication to bringing more 
openness and accountability to an agency that is too often known for 
secrecy is commendable. The same can be said of his advocacy for 
Americans' First Amendment rights.
  I look forward to advancing and then confirming his nomination to a 
new term.
  Madam President, one other nominee we are considering today is 
district judge Ralph Erickson of North Dakota, who is the nominee 
before us to fill a vacant seat on the Eighth Circuit. He is clearly 
qualified. He deeply respects the rule of law. He was confirmed by the 
Senate to his district judgeship by a voice vote. He enjoys the support 
of both of his home State Senators, Republican Senator Hoeven and 
Democratic Senator Heitkamp.
  When his nomination came before the Judiciary Committee recently, 
every single member of the committee voted to approve him--every single 
Republican, every single Democrat. This includes the top Democrat, 
Senator Feinstein, and the Democratic leadership's second-ranking 
officer, Senator Durbin. So you would think his nomination would be as 
noncontroversial as it gets. You would be right.
  Yet Democrats still chose to erect another pointless procedural 
hurdle before we can actually confirm him. We will probably do so 
overwhelmingly, given that the Senate just voted 95 to 1 on this 
pointless cloture motion--a pointless cloture motion on a nominee who 
nobody opposes.
  Until now, our friends across the aisle have thrown up one 
unnecessary procedural hurdle after the next on even the most 
uncontroversial of nominees. As I have noted before, the opposition 
they have shown to these nominees most of the time seems to have little 
to do with the nominees themselves nor whether Democrats even support 
them. Our Democratic colleagues actually do support the nominees, just 
as they do now.
  This really has to stop. It is time to end these silly games. It is 
time to confirm Judge Erickson, a dedicated jurist who is going to make 
a great addition to the Eighth Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                        Tribute to Mary Jo Brown

  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise today to honor a proud educator, 
a dedicated public servant, a beloved native of my home State of West 
Virginia, and my very dear friend, Mary Jo Brown. Words cannot express 
my gratitude for Mary Jo's service and friendship.
  Since my days as Governor, Mary Jo has gone above and beyond to 
uphold the standards not only of professionalism, loyalty, and 
dedication but also of what it means to be born in the Eastern 
Panhandle of West Virginia.
  Mary Jo has always had a noble passion for education. She worked for 
Berkeley County Schools as a teacher, a library media specialist, 
director of public affairs, and finally as principal of Burke Street 
Elementary School, where we first became acquainted.
  Upon her retirement from Berkeley County Schools, I invited Mary Jo 
to work with me as a regional coordinator, a role she kept through my 
entire time as Governor and now as U.S. Senator. Her warm personality 
and sense of humor truly have a way of making you feel at ease--
laughing quite frequently at not only her but yourself.
  I have heard many times from members of the Eastern Panhandle 
community that when she is out meeting with elected officials, business 
owners, and fellow West Virginians, she provides

[[Page 15240]]

every confidence that their voices are being heard, and I can assure 
you, they are. She gets in contact with me immediately.
  When Mary Jo is given a task, she doesn't take no for an answer. She 
is the most tenacious person I have ever met. She gives each project or 
challenge her all because it is for the good of her community, our 
State, and her hometown.
  It would be difficult to find anyone as knowledgeable and dedicated 
to our home State as Mary Jo. Among her many contributions to the 
Eastern Panhandle, together with her loving husband Walter, was 
founding the Walter and Mary Jo Ziler Brown Fund in 2006 to help 
Eastern Panhandle students study animal husbandry, agriculture, and 
veterinary medicine.
  We bonded over our passion for public service, inspiring the next 
generation of leaders, and we share the common goal of helping the rest 
of the country discover all that our great State of West Virginia has 
to offer.
  Now that she is retiring after a long career of teaching, public 
service, and more than a decade of Federal service, I know that Mary Jo 
will carry the same passion for the Eastern Panhandle and for West 
Virginia that she always has, and she will continue to make a 
difference wherever she may be and wherever she goes--always for the 
State of West Virginia and her community.
  It is my greatest honor to extend to her and to Walter my very best 
wishes in the days and years ahead.
  Thank you, Mary Jo, and God bless you for everything you have done 
for me, for our office, and, most importantly, for our State of West 
Virginia and the Eastern Panhandle. God bless you.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I am honored to come to the floor today 
to express my support for the President's nominee to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Judge Ralph Erickson.
  Judge Erickson is a longtime North Dakotan and has been a tremendous 
public servant in his current capacity as Federal district court judge 
in Fargo, ND. He has made our State proud, and I am confident he will 
be an excellent addition to the Eighth Circuit Court.
  Judge Erickson has a distinguished legal career which spans over two 
decades. After working in private practice for 10 years, he served as a 
magistrate judge for Cass County and then as a State district judge for 
the East Central Judicial District Court. In 2003, Judge Erickson was 
nominated by President George W. Bush to the U.S. District Court for 
the District of North Dakota and was quickly confirmed by the Senate 
unanimously.
  Throughout his tenure, Judge Erickson has demonstrated deep respect 
for the Constitution and the rule of law. His judicial experience 
ranges from overseeing routine civil cases to cases involving extreme 
criminal violence. Throughout all of these cases, Judge Erickson 
practiced a measured and prudential legal approach that is necessary 
for a position on the second highest court in the United States.
  Judge Erickson has also proved to be a champion for Indian Country. 
He serves as the Chair of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group on the 
United States Sentencing Commission, where he works to preserve Tribal 
sovereignty. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I 
believe Judge Erickson's expertise on this issue will be a valuable 
asset to the Eighth Circuit Court.
  Madam President, part of our duty as Senators is to evaluate the 
qualifications of the President's appointees and to vote on their 
nominations accordingly. This is a responsibility that I take very 
seriously, and I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Erickson will 
be an excellent circuit judge. I am honored to be here to support his 
nomination and to urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  I would also like to note that in the Gallery today we have his 
daughter Elizabeth joining us. I think it is wonderful that she could 
be here to see her father's confirmation vote. She is a sophomore at 
Catholic University and just an outstanding young person, and there is 
no doubt that she is extremely proud of her father today. So it is 
wonderful to welcome her here for this momentous occasion.
  With that, 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, all time having expired, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the Erickson nomination?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Strange), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Ex.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--1

       
     Warren
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cochran
     Menendez
     Strange
     Tillis
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________