[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19587-19595]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of 
the following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Leonard 
Steven Grasz, of Nebraska, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
Eighth Circuit.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                         Funding the Government

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last week, the House and Senate passed a 
short-term funding bill to keep the government open as Republican and 
Democratic negotiators continue to work on a long-term spending deal. 
The negotiations are advancing well, but many issues remain to be 
resolved.
  First and foremost, we must resolve the issue of the spending caps. 
If we do nothing, there will be painful and unnecessary cuts to both 
defense spending and programs that invest directly in jobs and economic 
development for the middle class in early January. We must lift the 
spending caps for defense and also those urgent domestic priorities in 
equal measure. That has been the basis of the successful budget 
agreements going back several years and as recently as April of this 
year. There was parity between defense and nondefense, and that is how 
it ought to stay. That is what brought us home to a good agreement and 
no shutdowns in previous years.
  As the opioid crisis continues to rage, dimming the bright future of 
so many Americans, we have a moral obligation to step up our country's 
support for addiction treatment and recovery. I have had a father cry 
in my arms because his son was online waiting to get into a treatment 
program, but it was too crowded. He had to wait, and his son died of an 
overdose before he could get in. We can't have that in America.
  So many of our young people, the flower of our youth, are dying or 
being hurt so badly, addicted, with this opioid crisis. We cannot sit 
by, just as we cannot sit by with foreign threats that plague our 
country.
  As veterans continue to struggle to find the quality healthcare they 
deserve after bravely serving this Nation, we should be making 
additional investments in veterans' healthcare and veterans hospitals. 
Just as we need to help our soldiers abroad, we need to help those who 
have fought for us, risked their lives for us, and now have healthcare 
problems.
  As hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of miners, truckdrivers, 
construction workers, and food service workers approach retirement age, 
we have to make sure the pension plans promised to them have enough in 
the bank to fulfill that promise. These people painstakingly paid every 
month into their plans, and so did their employers. They would forgo 
larger salary increases so they could make sure they are taken care of 
when they retire.
  Now that the pension funds--in good part because of the crash of 
2008--don't have the money they need, these people should not be left 
out. Hard-working American families deserve to retire with the dignity 
and security they have earned. If we don't meet these pension 
obligations today, they are going to cost the government a whole lot 
more tomorrow. That is why Democrats are fighting for a pension 
solution in the year-end spending bill.
  These are all urgent priorities. There are more. They can't wait 
another day, just as we must make sure our men and women in uniform 
have the resources and support they need to do their job. Let's do both 
in a bipartisan way.
  As Democrats continue to push for desperately needed funding to 
combat the opioid crisis, improve veterans'

[[Page 19588]]

healthcare, and shore up pension plans, we will also be pushing to 
reauthorize CHIP--the Children's Health Insurance Program--and 
community health centers, as well as dealing with certain healthcare 
programs that have expired.
  We have to do more for the Americans in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, 
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who are still recovering from 
devastating natural disasters.
  We are in the process of negotiating with Republicans to provide a 
significant investment in border security in exchange for DACA. These 
talks continue to progress, and I am hopeful we can reach an agreement 
on that issue as well.
  We have a lot to get done before the end of the year. We don't have 
much time to do it, but with the concerted effort of both parties, 
negotiating in good faith, I believe we can reach an agreement 
acceptable not to every Member of either Chamber but to large numbers 
of Members on both sides of the aisle so we can pass our agreement by a 
wide margin.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, for more than two decades, under both 
Republican and Democratic Presidents and Republican and Democratic 
Congresses, the United States pursued a bipartisan light-touch approach 
to internet regulation. The internet as we know it today flourished 
under this light-touch approach, much to the benefit of American 
consumers and the domestic economy. It also made America the world 
leader in internet technology and positioned us to continue that 
leadership in the years to come.
  In 2002, broadband internet was classified by the Federal 
Communications Commission, or FCC, our Nation's communications 
regulator, as an information service under title I of the 
Communications Act. This classification exempted the internet from 
burdensome regulations contained in title II of the Communications Act, 
which were designed in the Depression era for the old telephone 
monopolies.
  Under the Obama administration, we saw repeated attempts to bring the 
internet under greater government control. Finally, in 2015, at the 
explicit direction of President Obama, the FCC did as it was told and 
reclassified broadband internet access service as a title II service, 
subjecting broadband internet to onerous common carrier rules and 
opening the door to further regulation, including price regulation. Not 
surprisingly, with heavier regulation came a decline in broadband 
investment. Indeed, we have seen private investment in broadband 
infrastructure decline over the past 2 years. This decline should not 
be mistaken as a sign that broadband infrastructure is not needed. In 
fact, the opposite is true, as there are still 34 million Americans who 
lack access to broadband services at home.
  In States like my home State of South Dakota, encouraging broadband 
deployment continues to be critical to ensuring that rural areas have 
the same economic opportunity as their urban counterparts. The Federal 
Government should not be putting up barriers to broadband deployment; 
it should be removing them. Congress and the FCC need to ensure 
regulatory framework is in place that protects consumers but that 
doesn't stand in the way of investment and innovation.
  Prior to the FCC's 2015 actions to bring broadband under title II, 
and for more than a decade under the light-touch regulatory framework 
of title I, we saw unprecedented growth that revolutionized our daily 
lives and allowed us to stay better connected with our loved ones. The 
internet created new jobs and expanded opportunities for education and 
commerce. It became the greatest engine of innovation for our times.
  Despite the fearmongering and doomsday rhetoric that continues to 
plague this debate, when the FCC moves forward and restores the 
internet to its pre-2015 regulatory status, the internet will continue 
to thrive and serve as an engine for future economic growth.
  I commend Chairman Pai at the FCC and the entire Commission for all 
the hard work over the last year that has gotten us to this point. I 
also commend Chairman Pai for his commitment to transparency throughout 
this process. For the first time in the history of the Commission, 
under Chairman Pai's leadership, the public was able to view the 
Restoring Internet Freedom item 3 weeks prior to the FCC's vote. That 
is true of all documents to be considered by the Commission--a major 
departure from the previous administration's actions, which were often 
not made public until the very last minute. As a result of Chairman 
Pai's commitment to transparency, the public has the benefit of not 
only viewing the item but also participating in the process.
  Despite attempts by those more interested in politicizing the issue 
and distracting from this debate, this item resulted in the most well 
informed and most exhaustive record of comments ever submitted to the 
FCC. The FCC is now well positioned to move forward to ensure that the 
internet is open and free. Regrettably, however, debate doesn't end 
there. The outcry from opponents of the FCC's proposal is that the 
internet will fall apart without adequate consumer protections.
  There is obviously immense passion that follows the issue of net 
neutrality. Americans care deeply about preserving a free and open 
internet, as do I and so many of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate on 
both sides of the aisle.
  As I have stated repeatedly and I will say again today, congressional 
action is the only way to solve the endless back-and-forth on net 
neutrality rules that we have seen over the past several years. If my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and those who claim to 
support net neutrality rules want to enshrine protections for consumers 
with the backing of the law, I call on them today to join me in 
discussing legislation that would do just that. While we are not going 
to agree on everything, I believe there is much room for compromise.
  Many of us in Congress already agree on many of the principles of net 
neutrality. True supporters of an open internet should be demanding 
such legislative protections today, not posturing while waiting for 
years during protracted legal proceedings or waiting for the political 
winds to shift.
  If Republicans and Democrats have the political support to work 
together on such a compromise, we can enact a regulatory framework that 
will stand the test of time. I have stood willing to work with any and 
all supporters of net neutrality protections for many years now, and I 
continue to stand ready today.
  It is time for Congress to settle this debate, and I welcome 
discussion on ways to ensure a free and open internet for decades to 
come.


                            Tax Reform Bill

  Mr. President, it has been a good week in the U.S. Senate. We are 
getting closer and closer to the finish line on tax reform. That means 
we are getting closer and closer to real relief for the American 
people. Our legislation is going to cut tax bills for American 
families, it is going to increase their wages, and it is going to give 
them access to new jobs and opportunities.
  The tax bill the Senate passed on December 2 would cut income tax 
rates for American families starting next month. It would double the 
standard deduction. It would double the child tax credit. That would 
mean a substantially lower tax bill for American families next year. 
Under our bill, a family of four making $73,000 a year would see a 
$2,200 tax cut.
  But our bill doesn't just provide immediate relief for families. Our 
bill also sets families up for economic health for the long-term by 
giving them access to higher wages, new jobs, and better opportunities.

[[Page 19589]]

  How does it do this? By improving the playing field for American 
businesses. In order for individual Americans to thrive economically, 
we need American businesses to thrive.
  Thriving businesses create jobs and provide opportunities; they 
increase wages and invest in their workers. But our current Tax Code 
has not been helping businesses thrive. For years now, our tax laws 
have left businesses of all sizes struggling under the burden of high 
tax rates and an outdated tax system that has left American businesses 
at a disadvantage in the global economy. Small businesses employ nearly 
half of American workers and create a majority of new jobs in this 
country, but right now small businesses face high tax rates that can 
make it difficult for these businesses to even survive, much less 
thrive and expand their operations.
  Our bill fixes this. To start with, our bill implements a new 
deduction for passthrough businesses, such as partnerships, LLCs, and S 
corporations. This deduction would allow them to keep more of their 
money, which would allow them to reinvest in their operations to 
increase wages and to hire new workers.
  Our bill also reforms current provisions in the Tax Code that 
frequently leave small businesses with little cash on hand. Under our 
legislation, small businesses would be able to recover the capital they 
have invested in inventory and machinery much more quickly and, in 
certain cases, immediately. This, in turn, would free up capital small 
businesses could use to expand and create jobs.
  Our legislation also includes provisions that I helped develop that 
would simplify accounting rules for small businesses, which would also 
help reduce their tax burden, leaving more of their earnings to 
reinvest in their businesses and in their workers.
  In addition to providing relief to small businesses, our bill will 
boost American wages by lowering our massive corporate tax rate. Our 
Nation's corporate tax rate is currently the highest in the 
industrialized world, which puts U.S. businesses at a major 
disadvantage next to their international competitors. Reducing the 
corporate tax rate will enable U.S. businesses to compete on a more 
level playing field, freeing up money that U.S. businesses can use to 
create jobs and to increase wages.
  The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates that reducing 
the corporate tax rate to 20 percent would increase wages for U.S. 
households by $4,000. That is money that families could use to save for 
retirement, help pay for a child's education, replace an aging vehicle, 
or invest in their home.
  Our bill would also boost wages and increase opportunities for 
Americans by ending the outdated tax framework that is driving American 
companies to keep jobs and profits overseas. Our Nation currently 
operates under a so-called worldwide tax system. That means that 
American companies pay U.S. taxes on the profit they make here at home 
as well as on part of the profits they make abroad, once they bring 
that money back to the United States. The problem with this is that 
American companies are already paying taxes to foreign governments on 
the money they make abroad. When they bring that money home, they can 
end up having to pay taxes again on part of those profits at the 
highest tax rate in the industrialized world. It is no surprise that 
this discourages businesses from bringing their profits back to the 
United States to invest in their domestic operations, new jobs, and 
increased wages.
  Our bill replaces our outdated worldwide tax system with a 
territorial tax system. Under our legislation, American companies would 
no longer face the double taxation that has encouraged them to send 
their investments and their operations overseas. Instead, U.S. 
companies would have a strong incentive to invest their profits at home 
in American jobs and American workers.
  All in all, the Tax Foundation estimates that in addition to 
increasing wages, our bill would create nearly 1 million new jobs for 
American workers and boost the size of the economy by 3.7 percent.
  This week, Members of the House and the Senate--myself included--are 
working on the final draft of comprehensive tax reform legislation. We 
hope to send a final bill to the President next week. I am thankful to 
have been able to be part of this tax-writing effort.
  The bill we are finalizing, which is the product of years of work by 
Members of both parties, represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity 
to profoundly change the American people's lives for the better. Our 
tax bill will provide real, immediate, direct relief to Americans and 
do it now, and it will give Americans access to the kinds of jobs, 
wages, and opportunities they need for a secure and prosperous future. 
After years of economic stagnation, the bill we are drafting will usher 
in a new era of economic dynamism in this country, and it will send a 
message to the world that America is serious about competing and 
winning in the 21st century.
  I am grateful to my colleagues on the House and Senate tax-writing 
committees for all the work they have done to put together this 
legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
conference committee to finish our final draft and to get this bill 
across the finish line for the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I approach this topic with a little bit of 
trepidation. Ordinarily when people make outrageous, outlandish, and 
unbelievable statements, I usually think it is best just to let them go 
because when people make these kinds of statements, I think they lose 
their own credibility, and maybe it doesn't bear any particular comment 
by anybody else or a desire or an attempt to refute it. But on the 
subject of tax reform, there have been some incredible statements that 
have been made, and I am going to mention a few of those because I 
think they really paint an ugly picture of what is supposed to be a 
debate on tax reform policy, but I think probably they relate more to 
sort of the nature of what passes for debate here in Washington, DC--
and particularly the Congress--on matters of important public policy. 
In other words, there isn't a lot of debate. There is accusation after 
accusation. It gets repeated on social media, then the press picks it 
up, and then people just assume, well, it must be true since nobody has 
ever denied it or offered any contrary narrative.
  For example, the House minority leader apparently had the time to 
read every bill that has ever been written since the year 1789 because 
she felt comfortable calling this tax bill, which is still in the 
process of being written--reconciling the House and Senate versions--
she called it the ``worst bill in the history of the United States 
Congress.'' She has been busy if she has read every bill since 1789. 
Then she went further because that apparently wasn't enough for her. 
She said that our tax bill isn't just poor legislation; she said that 
it is an existential threat to the Nation and possibly the entire 
planet. Can you believe that? An existential threat to the Nation and 
possibly the entire planet.
  Well, you can see why perhaps I was reluctant to come address these 
accusations, because I think anybody who would make those kinds of 
accusations has lost all credibility. But acting either as a prophet or 
an amateur astrologist--we are not quite sure--she called the prospect 
of passing tax reform ``Armageddon.''
  Well, it is hard to know what to say or do in the face of that sort 
of rhetoric because, frankly, this tax reform bill is a good thing. I 
wish our friends across the aisle, the Democrats, would join us

[[Page 19590]]

in trying to make it better. That is what happened the last time we 
tried to do this or this Congress tried to do it.
  In 1986, a Republican President; a Democratic Senator from New 
Jersey, Senator Bill Bradley; Dan Rostenkowski from Chicago, chairman 
of the House Ways and Means Committee, a Democrat; and other Members of 
Congress came together to try to reform our Tax Code, and they were 
successful in doing it against all odds.
  But today, we have an entirely different scenario. We have 
Republicans seeing that the economy is growing at a very slow rate and 
that wages for most workers have been flat for the last 10 years and 
realizing that our current Tax Code is counterproductive when it comes 
to encouraging investment, job creation, and wage growth in our country 
because we have the highest tax rate in the world for businesses that 
do business internationally. We thought, we need to do something about 
it, and so we set about reforming our Tax Code with three goals in 
mind.
  One is to simplify the Tax Code. Everybody knows how complex it is 
and how much money people spend hiring an accountant or H&R Block or 
somebody to help them figure it out. Secondly, we figured that it would 
be important to give hard-working families a tax cut. So we have 
succeeded in reducing the tax break for every tax bracket in the Tax 
Code for working families. For example, for low-income families, we 
have a zero tax bracket now. For a joint-filing husband and wife, on 
the first $24,000 they earn, there is no tax at all. And thanks to some 
great work by Senator Rubio and Senator Lee, we have doubled the child 
tax credit. Those are good things. We have doubled the standard 
deduction--so fewer people have to itemize deductions to get the full 
benefit of the code--while maintaining the charitable deduction and the 
mortgage interest deduction and popular items like that. We have also 
said, for example, that a family earning roughly $70,000 a year--the 
median income in America for a family of four--would see a benefit of 
roughly $2,200 less tax liability.
  I would think those would be good things that our friends across the 
aisle would want to work with us on. How do we simplify the code? How 
do we let people keep more of what they earn, more take-home pay, a 
better standard of living? How do we make America's economy more 
competitive since we have the highest tax rate in the world and we are 
seeing investment in businesses flee to other lower tax jurisdictions? 
You would think those would be the sorts of things on which our friends 
across the aisle would want to work with us but apparently not. 
Instead, what we get are these sort of reckless and really buffoonish 
allegations that cause the speaker to lose all credibility in any sort 
of debate we might be having.
  Unfortunately, the media tends to pick up on some of this rhetoric 
and jump on the bandwagon, but the media's worst claims are at least a 
little closer to Earth than what I recounted earlier. For example, the 
Washington Post said the tax reform ``took place behind closed doors.'' 
Well, that is a tired old rhetoric and talking point. You would think 
the Washington Post could come up with something a little better than 
that and actually something that is a little more accurate than that. 
One columnist at the New York Times sighs that the package benefits 
donors at the expense of voters--what does that mean?--and that it 
``only modestly addresses the central socioeconomic challenge of our 
time.'' Well, I wonder what this reporter or columnist for the New York 
Times thinks is the central socioeconomic challenge of our time. I 
think one of those is for people to be able to pursue the American 
dream, to be able to find work, to be paid a decent wage, and to be 
able to keep more of what they earn, but that apparently isn't good 
enough for this columnist at the New York Times.
  Certainly, these charges deserve a little more attention than the 
minority leader's asteroid attack, but they, too, are misguided.
  When it comes to tax reform, the drafting process did not take place 
behind closed doors. I wonder why the Washington Post was so ill-
informed and ignorant of the legislative process that they didn't see 
the 70 Senate hearings we have had on tax reform since 2011. They 
apparently didn't bother to turn on C-SPAN to see the debate and the 
amendment process in the Senate Finance Committee that produced the 
Senate bill, and they apparently are not paying much attention to what 
we are talking about here on the Senate floor as we are trying to 
reconcile the differences between the House bill and the Senate bill. 
So I guess they are just not paying much attention, which I thought 
newspapers and reporters were supposed to do.
  The second major allegation--that we are ignoring working Americans 
and the middle class--is demonstrably false.
  Many are wondering why tax cuts for families are temporary and the 
ones for corporations are permanent. Well, we know that businesses need 
long-term assurances about the tax environment so that they will invest 
and make plans. We wanted to make tax cuts for individuals permanent, 
too, but that requires 60 votes in the Senate, and every single one of 
our Democratic colleagues voted against the bill and they refused to 
participate in the process. So with only 52 votes to work with, we were 
unable to meet that 60-vote threshold. So on the one hand, they 
criticize us for not making those tax cuts for individuals permanent, 
but then they deny us the votes we need in order to make that happen. 
It is not that we don't want to make these tax cuts permanent for the 
middle class; it is that the Democrats are preventing us from doing so.
  I agree with my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Rubio, who has said that when it comes to debating tax 
reform, Republicans can't be the country club party. I certainly agree 
that is not who we are, but that is also not who we should be helping 
in this bill. We ought to be addressing low-income and middle-class 
Americans first.
  Yes, we do lower the corporate rate, but historically that has been 
something Democrats have called for. I remember that in 2011, President 
Obama, in a joint session of Congress, called for reducing the highest 
corporate tax rate in the world, and he called upon Republicans and 
Democrats to work together to make that happen. And we have had others, 
like the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, the Senator 
from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, who cosponsored a bill that would have reduced 
the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 24 percent. We do a little 
better than that in this bill. We take it down to 20 percent, which is 
close to the industrialized world average on tax rates, but the Senator 
from New York, the Democratic leader, has also called for lowering the 
corporate tax rate and making us more competitive in the global 
economy. Do you know what will happen when we do that? We will see 
investment come back to the United States, along with the jobs that go 
along with it. Who will benefit from that? Will the businesses that 
create those jobs benefit? I suppose they will, but the people who will 
really benefit will be the people who perform those jobs and who earn 
those wages: hard-working American families.
  A group of nearly 140 economists say that, on balance, they believe 
the bill will enhance economic efficiency and result in most households 
enjoying lower marginal rates. That is economics talk for tax cuts. But 
what about fairness and simplification? Don't we all want a fairer tax 
code and one that is easier to navigate? I believe, once again, our 
bill delivers.
  Those economists I mentioned say fairness would be served by 
reduction differences, and the tax treatment of individuals with 
similar incomes and simplification would be served by reducing the 
number of individuals who itemize for Federal tax purposes. That is 
exactly what we do by doubling the standard deduction.
  Right now, about 3 out of 10 individual taxpayers itemize. Under our 
doubling the standard deduction, only 1 out of 10 will find it 
necessary to itemize.

[[Page 19591]]

  The simple truth is, the Senate bill will lower tax bills on millions 
of working-class Americans. It will lower taxes, not raise them, on the 
working class. Again, by nearly doubling the standard deduction and 
lowering rates across the board and doubling the child tax credit, the 
Senate tax reform plan will lower taxes for every income group. The 
Senate tax plan was written with working families in mind, and the 
legislation reflects that goal.
  As I said earlier, and I will say it again, a family of four earning 
a median income of about $70,000 will see a $2,200 savings in their tax 
bill each year. It may be easy for folks living in the rarified air in 
Washington, DC, to shrug that off and say $2,200 is no big deal to me, 
but to the people I represent, $2,200 in tax savings a year is a big 
deal. It can mean the difference between being able to save for 
retirement, help pay for a college education, or maybe take a vacation 
for the first time in a long time. That is the money they have earned, 
and we are simply saying you can keep more of it under this bill.
  Finally, I want to mention the Federal deficit. Will the tax bill 
increase it? Well, yesterday the Office of Tax Policy at the Treasury 
Department released an analysis of expected tax revenue associated with 
the administration's economic growth initiatives. Among the key 
findings is, $1.8 trillion of additional revenue would be generated 
over 10 years based on expected economic growth. The Congressional 
Budget Office uses the baseline of 1.9-percent economic growth. That is 
because, during the entire Obama Presidency, the U.S. Government and 
economy experienced an unprecedented low rate of economic growth since 
the Great Recession of 2008, but, historically, dating back to World 
War II, we have seen the economy grow at 3.2 percent. So why should we 
settle for 1.9 percent or 2 percent? We shouldn't.
  Our friends on the other side have suddenly become deficit hawks 
after seeing the national debt double during the Obama administration. 
Let's not forget, they supported lowering these same corporate tax 
rates year after year and embraced other parts of our plan which we 
have incorporated. That is why their attacks, their histrionics, their 
screams of Armageddon are laughable, and, frankly, they insult the 
intelligence of Americans who are trying to figure this out. It is hard 
to figure out what is actually happening when you have somebody crying 
like Chicken Little that the sky is falling. It is hard for people to 
sort all of this out.
  Well, as we continue to work on a conference committee report to 
reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate versions of 
the bill, our focus will be on those hard-working American families I 
mentioned earlier--people of modest income, people of average income.
  Yes, we are going to make our businesses more competitive globally 
because that will benefit the same families we are trying to benefit by 
the individual tax cuts.
  You can see why I perhaps was a little reluctant to come address some 
of these histrionics and outlandish and unbelievable claims, but I have 
also learned that if you don't respond--if you don't counter falsehood 
with truth--some people are simply going to believe the falsehood, so I 
thought it was important to do so. Let's remain clear-eyed, and let's 
get this work done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
Children's Health Insurance Program and Community Health Centers, but I 
do want to take a moment to respond to my friend and colleague, the 
distinguished Senator on the Republican side.
  I can speak for myself and others, I know, on this side who very much 
want to see tax reform, very much want to close loopholes that take 
jobs overseas and support small businesses, but what is in front of us 
and what was voted on was a bill that, when fully implemented, would 
raise taxes on something like 87 million middle-class Americans. That 
doesn't make any sense at all.
  All of the rosy estimates on economic growth were not backed up in 
legislative language. As to the $4,000 wage increase that had been 
talked about as a minimum for people across the country to receive 
based on economic growth, I suggested we write that into law; that if, 
in fact, folks don't get their $4,000, the tax breaks would stop--and 
folks aren't willing to do that.
  I want to make sure folks in Michigan get their $4,000 wage increase, 
and we don't get another bunch of promises with trickle-down economics, 
where everything goes to the top 1 percent, and folks in Michigan are 
still waiting for it to trickle down.


                   CHIP and Community Health Centers

  Mr. President, let me go to the subject I am here to talk about; that 
is, the fact that we are now on day 73 since the Children's Health 
Insurance Program and community health center funding has stopped. The 
Federal funding stopped on September 30.
  I am very concerned. I was reading today that the House leadership 
has essentially been saying they don't want to see this continued as 
part of a year-end package in 2 weeks. My assumption was, we were going 
to see the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health 
centers wrapped into the bill in a couple of weeks that would set the 
priorities for our country.
  If it is true what was reported, there ought to be an alarm going out 
all across the country. The Children's Health Insurance Program--which 
we call MIChild in Michigan--covers 9 million children across the 
country. These are working families. These are working families who 
need some help to have insurance for their children--children who now 
go to the doctor instead of an emergency room. This actually saves 
dollars by children being able to have a regular relationship with a 
doctor, parents knowing they can take their children to the doctor 
instead of having to figure out how to address their concerns in the 
middle of the night in the emergency room.
  So 9 million children right now are at risk because of inaction. It 
has been 73 days. I am very concerned that as soon as February, the 
MIChild Program will be running out of funding. In fact, this month, 
there are three States that are losing funding for the Children's 
Health Insurance Program: Arizona, with over 88,000 children who 
receive health insurance and are able to go to the doctor. Their moms 
and dads know that at least the kids are going to be able to see the 
doctor for their juvenile diabetes, their asthma, or simple things like 
a cold, flu, or serious things like cancer.
  New Hampshire has 17,000--almost 18,000 children. In Oregon, 140,000 
children right now receive their healthcare through the Children's 
Health Insurance Program. Starting in January, if there is no action, 
we will see millions of children losing their health insurance: 
California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Massachusetts, 
Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Each month, we will see 
funding that will be eliminated. In total, we are talking about 9 
million children.
  This has been a bipartisan program. This came out of committee on a 
bipartisan vote in September with Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden. I 
was pleased to join them in putting together a 5-year extension. It 
came out of committee with strong bipartisan support and only one 
``no'' vote.
  I assumed it was going to be brought up on the floor before September 
30 and passed. Yet 73 days later, children and families across the 
country are still waiting.
  The other piece of healthcare that has been so critical to families--
to children and individuals across our country--is funding for 
community health centers, which, by the way, also has strong bipartisan 
support. Senator Roy Blunt and I have put in legislation with 
Republicans and Democrats cosponsoring it. We have a letter that 70 
different Members signed to our leadership saying they support 
extending community health center funding. Yet, again, there has been 
no action for 73 days.

[[Page 19592]]

  Our assumption had been that the Children's Health Insurance Program 
would come to the floor, we would amend it to add health centers, and 
get it done before September 30. It has not happened. The community 
health centers serve 25 million patients in every part of our country. 
So 300,000 veterans rely on community health centers, and 7.5 million 
children, as well, rely on community health centers. I should add, we 
have 260 sites all across Michigan serving 681,000 people. Again, 
almost 13,000 Michigan veterans use our community health centers.
  We have bipartisan support to continue funding, but the funding ended 
September 30. So what happens? Well, starting in January, Michigan's 
community health centers will lose $12.8 million in funding because 
about 70 percent of the funding for health centers comes through the 
legislation we are now offering with bipartisan support. About 20,000 
people will lose their healthcare. By June, Michigan's health centers 
will lose over $80 million in funding, and almost 100,000 patients will 
lose healthcare. This is critically important as well. We are talking 
about 25 million people across the country.
  Community health centers and the Children's Health Insurance Program 
is something we have come together on, on a bipartisan basis, over the 
years. There has to be a sense of urgency about this. We cannot leave 
at Christmas--we can't leave for the holidays without having a 
guarantee that children and families and individuals across our country 
will be able to have the health insurance and the medical care they 
have been receiving.
  The best Christmas present--the best New Year's present we could give 
families--is to guarantee that moms and dads can take their kids to the 
doctor, if we have the Children's Health Insurance Program, and that 
people young and old across the country who use community health 
centers will still know they can count on them.
  Let me close by just sharing a story from John, who is one of the 
more than 12,700 veterans served by Michigan's community health 
centers.
  John had always been healthy. He didn't have health insurance. In 
fact, the last time he had seen a doctor was when he was still in the 
service back in 1975.
  Last summer, he started having symptoms. He tried to ignore them, but 
his wife knew something was wrong. They tried to get help but faced 
long waits for him to be seen. That is when they contacted the Traverse 
Health Clinic.
  The clinic was able to get John in right away, and his wife's fears 
were confirmed. He was diagnosed with congestive heart failure.
  The team at Traverse Health Clinic helped get John admitted to the 
hospital, coordinated services with the cardiologist, and got him 
signed up for health coverage. That is what community health centers 
do--connect people with the services they need to be treated or provide 
preventive care so that they can stay healthy.
  In John's case, he says it changed his life. John said this:

       There are a lot of people like me who were doing fine and 
     now they're not. There are a lot of people like me who need a 
     place like Traverse Health Clinic. I consider myself 
     extremely fortunate. Now I have a doctor. I'm so thankful.

  On behalf of the 25 million people who use community health centers 
and the 9 million children covered by the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, it is time that we act. They have been waiting for 73 days. We 
could do this in a few hours, in a day, on the Senate floor. I urge us 
to get this done.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I rise today in continued support of Steve 
Grasz's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
  Some of those who have been attacking Mr. Grasz have claimed that he 
doesn't have the character or the temperament to treat litigants fairly 
and decide cases based on the facts and the law.
  In evaluating those claims, I hope my colleagues in this body will 
listen to the hundreds of Nebraskans of all partisan and ideological 
stripes who have stood up in support of Steve's nomination. I urge 
everyone to listen to what those Nebraskans have to say specifically 
about his character and about his temperament.
  One Nebraskan wrote to Mrs. Fischer, the senior Senator from 
Nebraska, and to me, as well as to the Judiciary Committee:

       I was the plaintiff in a First Amendment defamation and 
     political speech action against the Nebraska Republican 
     Party. . . . Mr. Grasz represented the Nebraska Republican 
     Party. I was not successful in my lawsuit. However, I did 
     have the opportunity to meet and interact with Mr. Grasz 
     during the case and found him to be . . . a consummate 
     professional. Based on my observations I believe his judicial 
     temperament would be of the highest quality and all parties 
     would be given equal opportunity. . . . I can think of no one 
     better qualified or suited to be appointed to this 
     prestigious judgeship than Steven Grasz.

  Another Nebraskan wrote to us:

       I know Steve personally having served as opposing counsel 
     to him on cases. . . . Steve was a formidable opponent. . . . 
     While he zealously advocated for his clients, he did so in a 
     level-headed and even-keeled manner.

  Yet another Nebraskan writes:

       I . . . have . . . represented clients in cases where Mr. 
     Grasz was opposing counsel. In all circumstances he 
     demonstrates the utmost professionalism. . . . I am a 
     registered Democrat and, quite frankly, am not a strong 
     supporter of the current administration. However, as a 
     practicing attorney dealing with complex litigation and 
     appearing regularly in the federal courts of appeals, I want 
     intelligent, thoughtful individuals appointed to the Bench 
     who will administer the law and apply existing precedent. I 
     have no doubt that Mr. Grasz can do that very effectively.

  Also, consider the words of this Nebraskan:

       Steve does not allow his role as an advocate to cloud his 
     analyses and judgment. He reviews statutes, regulations, rule 
     and common law with a clear eye, and he applies these 
     authorities to the facts presented to him. . . . [H]is 
     respect for precedent and his high regard for the works of 
     other branches of government show his dedication to following 
     the Constitution and our nation's laws as they are written.

  Steve Grasz is a Nebraskan through and through. As I said here on the 
floor yesterday, Steve bleeds Husker red, but he is a guy who is well 
suited to take on the black robes of the judge, for he understands that 
we do not have blue or red partisan jerseys on our article III branch 
of government, the independent judiciary.
  Steve is well suited to serve as a judge on the Eighth Circuit. I 
think that not just Nebraskans but folks across all the States 
represented in the Eighth Circuit are going to find a man of 
unbelievable temperament.
  The ABA is a liberal advocacy organization. That is absolutely their 
right. What is not OK is for the ABA to masquerade as a neutral arbiter 
of professional qualifications.
  Attacks on Steve's character have come out of this process because 
the two reviewers from the ABA cite again and again and again anonymous 
sources of his supposed rudeness. We have seen none of that in 
Nebraska. Again, hundreds of people have written to the senior Senator 
and to me and now to the Judiciary Committee in support of the 
President's decision to nominate Steve Grasz to the Eighth Circuit 
Court of Appeals.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the specific letters I have just cited.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Moats Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O.,

                                  Elkhorn, NE, September 21, 2017.
     Re Nomination of Steven Grasz for 8th Circuit Appellate 
         Judgeship.

     Chairman Chuck Grassley,
     Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein,
     Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Grassley and Feinstein: Steven Grasz has been 
     nominated as an appellate judge for the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I write this letter of 
     recommendation in support of his nomination and confirmation. 
     I am a lifelong member of the Democratic party.
       I have known Mr. Grasz since 2009 when we were involved in 
     common litigation to the Nebraska Supreme Court (Moats v. 
     Republican Party of Nebraska, 281 Neb. 411, 796

[[Page 19593]]

     N.W.2d 584 (2011)) which was subsequently appealed to the 
     United States Supreme Court where certiorari was denied. I 
     was the plaintiff in a First Amendment defamation and 
     political speech action against the Nebraska Republican Party 
     arising out of a non-partisan office I sought in the Nebraska 
     Unicameral in the fall of 2008. Mr. Grasz represented the 
     Nebraska Republican Party.
       I was not successful in my lawsuit. However I did have the 
     opportunity to meet and interact with Mr. Grasz during the 
     case and found him to be polite and courteous and extremely 
     well informed and educated on this complicated subject 
     matter. At no time did he ever show any inappropriate actions 
     or behavior towards me or my family and was a consummate 
     professional. Based on my observations I believe his judicial 
     temperament would be of the highest quality and all parties 
     would be given equal opportunity.
       In life there is always another chapter to each of our 
     collective stories. I am pleased to inform you, that my 
     dealings with Mr. Grasz and his family extended beyond the 
     case we were involved in. Our children were involved in 
     competitive dance for the pest four years and my wife and our 
     children had the opportunity to interact with Mr. Grasz and 
     his family in a social setting. My observations and 
     interactions with him were always positive and productive 
     notwithstanding him haying been on opposite side of a very 
     emotional case. He is a terrific husband and father, a 
     brilliant legal scholar and oaring human being. I can think 
     of no one better qualified or suited to be appointed to this 
     prestigious judgeship than Steven Grasz.
           Sincerely,
     Rex J. Moats.
                                  ____

                                               September 18, 2017.
     Re Nomination of L. Steven Grasz.

     Chairman Chuck Grassley,
     Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein,
     Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: I write in 
     support of the nomination of Steve Grasz to the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I know Steve 
     personally having served as opposing counsel to him on cases. 
     I also know him by reputation in the Omaha legal community 
     through his work on significant litigation.
       Steve was a formidable opponent. He was willing to go the 
     extra step to advance his clients' interests. While he 
     zealously advocated for his clients, he did so in a level-
     headed and even-keeled manner. I've never seen him raise his 
     voice. He listens and asks good questions. His temperament is 
     well suited for the position to which he has been nominated.
       There is no question Steve has the intellect to do the 
     important work of a federal appellate court judge. He has 
     published multiple law review articles which have contributed 
     to the practice of law. Steve's pleadings and briefs are 
     clear, thoughtful, and well written. He did not attempt to 
     advance frivolous claims. In my experience with him, he works 
     diligently and was always well prepared.
       Unfortunately, with some lawyers, every conversation has to 
     be memorialized in a letter out of fear that the lawyer will 
     reverse course. That was not the case with Steve. His word 
     was good.
       Steve has both represented the government and represented 
     individuals in claims against the government. He has valuable 
     litigation experience in cases involving Section 1983 claims 
     and qualified immunity which make up a significant portion of 
     the cases handled by federal appellate judges. His experience 
     will serve him well while sitting on the other side of the 
     bench.
       I believe Steve is committed to upholding the laws and 
     Constitution of the United States, and will do so as a member 
     of the Eighth Circuit. I urge the Judiciary Committee to 
     advance his nomination.
           Respectfully Submitted,
     Timothy J. Thalken.
                                  ____

                                                September 9, 2017.
     Re Confirmation Hearing for L. Steven Grasz for Judge of the 
         United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

     Chairman Chuck Grassley,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein: I am writing 
     to express my support for Steven (Steve) Grasz to be 
     confirmed as judge for the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the Eighth Circuit. I have been a lawyer for twenty-one 
     years, and had the good fortune to spend five of those years 
     working with Steve on a variety of matters spanning from 
     local litigation to federal regulatory and administrative 
     actions. While Steve ably represented clients in state and 
     federal venues, I observed firsthand the qualities that would 
     make him an outstanding federal appellate court judge.
       Steve possesses admirable analytical skills an ability to 
     grasp complex and often highly abstract concepts in a manner 
     that allows to communicate these concepts in a plain, 
     understandable way. From a practical perspective, this is 
     very important skill for any judge to possess because it is 
     the vanishingly rare lawsuit in which the underlying dispute 
     is so very narrow that the judge's ruling is limited only to 
     the parties before the Court. Instead, judges' resolutions of 
     disputes serve as guidelines for many other lawyers and their 
     respective clients to follow in future transactions. This is 
     especially true for Circuit-level opinions, which are widely 
     disseminated. Well-reasoned, cogent judicial opinions are an 
     invaluable resource for lawyers to turn to when advising 
     Clients who may or may not be overly familiar with our 
     justice system. Lawyers rely upon judicial opinions when 
     advising clients about the relative risks and benefits of a 
     particular course of action. Steve's ability to communicate 
     difficult, often abstract concepts in plain terms will 
     contribute greatly to this very important function of our 
     legal system.
       Importantly, Steve does not allow his role as advocate to 
     cloud his analyses and judgment. He reviews statues, 
     regulations rule and common law with a clear eye, and applies 
     these authorities to the facts presented to him. Steve 
     advises clients and develops strategies based upon existing 
     authorities, showing his respect for our system of governance 
     and for each branch's contribution to it. His ability and 
     willingness to evaluate particular facts in light of various 
     authorities is a critical skill for judges to possess, and 
     shows his deep respect, for precedential law. Similarly, his 
     respect for precedent and his regard for the works of other 
     branches of government show his dedication to following the 
     Constitution and our nation's laws as they are written. This 
     quality is critically important for a judge to have following 
     the Constitution and our nation's laws as they are written is 
     part and parcel of the development and application of clear, 
     lasting legal principles upon which all members of the 
     public--not only lawyers and their clients--may rely in 
     conducting the transactions of everyday life.
       Finally, Steve has a temperament very well-suited in the 
     bench. He is levelheaded and unfailingly courteous to 
     opposing lawyers their respective clients, and to judges. I 
     have seen Steve involved in challenging, stressful 
     situations, yet his demeanor consistently remains composed 
     and polite. He does not engage in personal criticism of 
     judges, fellow lawyers, or litigants, nor does he allow the 
     behavior of others to be anything other than courteous and 
     professional. While certainly not every lawyer possesses this 
     ability, it is a vital one for judges to have because our 
     system of justice depends upon judges' ability to maintain 
     decorum even when attorneys or litigants are not doing so. 
     Through trying situations, Steve has consistently shown his 
     ability and willingness to treat all attorneys and parties 
     with respect, and he has conducted himself in the 
     professional, composed manner that lawyers hope to see in 
     judges at every level. His treatment of others ultimately 
     honors the truth-seeking function our system of justice is 
     intended to fulfill since he does not engage in 
     obstructionist tactics or gamesmanship intended to drive up 
     litigation costs or designed to deny other parties access to 
     information bearing upon matter in dispute. As a lawyer, 
     Steve sets an excellent example of someone working toward 
     fair and just resolutions of disputes. This attribute would 
     serve him very well as a judge and would directly benefit all 
     persons impacted by the court's decisions.
       Thank you for taking the time to review my letter of 
     support for Steve. If you have any questions or concerns 
     about my standpoint regarding his ample qualifications for 
     being confirmed as judge for the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, please let me know.
           Sincerely,
     Tim Dolan.
                                  ____



                                                    Omaha, NE,

                                               September 20, 2017.
     Re Nomination of Steve Grasz, United States Court of Appeals 
         for the Eighth Circuit.

     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     U.S. Senator,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing to indicate my strong 
     support for President Trump's nomination of Steve Grasz to 
     the United State Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
       Mr. Grasz was employed by the Kutak Rock law firm when I 
     began working there right after law school. Mr. Grasz is very 
     intelligent and has the legal background and skill to be an 
     asset to the Court of Appeals. I have maintained my 
     acquaintance with Mr. Grasz and have also represented clients 
     in cases where Mr. Grasz was opposing counsel. In all 
     circumstances he demonstrates the utmost professionalism.
       I have no hesitation in stating that litigants could 
     present to him the most complex legal issues and he would be 
     able to analyze them intelligently and coherently. I have 
     also had the opportunity to read materials he has written. 
     Opinions by him would be a credit to the judiciary.
       Although I personally believe that an individual's personal 
     political, social, or religious practices and beliefs are 
     irrelevant to qualifications for a judicial position, I 
     realize that such considerations have been injected into 
     judicial confirmation proceedings

[[Page 19594]]

     over the past few years. I expect that certain factions may 
     attempt to raise such issues regarding Mr. Grasz who has 
     actively served both his government and his community.
       I am a registered Democrat and, quite frankly, am not a 
     strong supporter of the current administration. However, as a 
     practicing attorney dealing with complex litigation and 
     appearing regularly in the federal courts of appeals, I want 
     intelligent, thoughtful individuals appointed to the Bench 
     who will administer the law and apply existing precedent. I 
     have no doubt Mr. Grasz can do that very effectively.
       I appreciate your consideration of my recommendation. If 
     there is any interest in further information, please feel 
     free to have your staff contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Diana J. Vogt,
                                                     For the Firm.

  Mr. SASSE. I urge all of my colleagues to listen to all of the 
Nebraskans, again, of all backgrounds and across the partisan spectrum, 
as they have urged us to confirm Mr. Grasz today.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII that at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, there 
be 30 minutes of postcloture time remaining on the Grasz nomination, 
equally divided between the leaders or their designees, and that 
following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the 
confirmation of the Grasz 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


      Department of the Interior 5-Year Offshore Oil and Gas Plan

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, there are all kinds of reports swirling 
around Washington, and we are hearing from those reports that the Trump 
administration is about to give a huge, early Christmas present to the 
oil industry. The reports are, the Department of the Interior is 
preparing to unveil a new 5-year plan for offshore oil and gas 
drilling--one that would open up the entire Atlantic coast of the 
United States to drilling. This new 5-year plan, which would go into 
effect in 2019, would replace the current 5-year plan that was 
finalized just last year and doesn't expire until 2022.
  Why is the Department of the Interior in such a rush to waste 
taxpayers' money to write a new one? The answer is, the oil industry 
wants to start drilling in these areas now, and the Trump 
administration is going to let them do it. While it hasn't been 
released yet, we are hearing that the administration's new plan will 
open up the entire Atlantic coast to offshore drilling--from Maine to 
as far south as Cape Canaveral. Let me show you why that is a problem.
  This is the east coast of the United States. This is Maine. This is 
Florida. This is Cape Canaveral. This is Fort Pierce, FL. Look what 
happens on the Atlantic coast off the eastern continental United 
States. These are all military testing areas. Every one of these 
hatched areas--every one of these blocks--is of a place that has 
limited access because of military testing.
  Take, for example, all of this area off the east coast of Florida. 
There is a place called the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. There is 
a place called the Kennedy Space Center. We are launching commercial 
and military rockets, and within another year and a half, we will be 
launching American rockets with American astronauts that will go, just 
like the space shuttle before them, to and from the International Space 
Station and will carry crews as well as the cargo they already carry.
  When you are launching to the International Space Station or, in 2 
years, when we launch the largest rocket ever from the Kennedy Space 
Center--the forerunner to the Mars Program, taking humans to Mars, or 
in the case of the new Mars rocket, called the SLS, the Space Launch 
System--where do you think it will drop its solid rocket boosters? It 
will drop them precisely out here, which is exactly why you cannot have 
oil rigs out here.
  All of the commercial rockets that come out of Cape Canaveral right 
now put up a host of communications satellites; that is, a 
constellation of satellites. How do you think we get our pinpoint GPS 
here on Earth? Many of those rockets are coming right out of the Cape 
Canaveral Air Force Station, and, increasingly, there is commercial 
activity at the Kennedy Space Center, which is collocated with the Cape 
Canaveral Air Force Station.
  What about all of those scientific satellites that are out there that 
give us precise measurements on what is happening to the climate so 
when we then track hurricanes, we know precisely and have such great 
success in predicting the path and the voracity of a hurricane? All of 
those rockets are coming out of Cape Canaveral. They have first stages, 
and when the first stages burn up, they have to fall someplace. You 
cannot have oil and gas production out here.
  It would be the same off of Norfolk, VA. They also have a launching 
point there for NASA--Wallops Island. Yet, in the Norfolk area, all of 
the military does its training out in the Atlantic, and you are going 
to have a whole disruption.
  Take, for example, all of the military assets--spy satellites--that 
go into orbit and are rocketed out of Cape Canaveral. Those first 
stages, when burned up, have to fall. That is why we have a location 
like the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It launches from west to 
east in order to get that extra boost of the Earth's rotation and, 
therefore, needs less fuel to get into orbit.
  This is a prime location. You cannot put oil and gas out here. You 
cannot have oil rigs off of Cape Canaveral, where all of these 
military, NASA, and commercial rockets are going, as well as 
governmental payloads that are not military.
  We have heard the loud opposition from the Department of Defense, the 
chambers of commerce, fishermen, and coastal communities all along the 
Atlantic that have weighed in against the administration's plan to 
allow drilling off their coasts.
  We thought we had put this puppy to bed last year when the Obama 
administration backed off its plans to have these drilling areas. They 
backed off because of the opposition. They also backed off when it came 
to Florida. Why? Florida has more beaches than any other State. We 
don't have as much coastline. Alaska has the greatest coastline, but 
the last time I checked, Alaska didn't have a lot of beaches. The one 
that is blessed with the beautiful beaches is Florida. When it comes to 
beaches, that means people want to go to the beach, and that means 
there is a significant tourism-driven economy there. We learned what 
happened with just the threat of there being oil on the beach. Remember 
the Deepwater Horizon oil explosion off of Louisiana? Let me show you 
so you don't get confused with all of these colors.
  In essence, all of this yellow over on the other side of Florida, in 
the Gulf of Mexico, means this area is off-limits. It is in law, and it 
is a good thing because when the Deepwater Horizon spilled off of 
Louisiana, the winds shifted, and that oil started drifting to the 
east. It got as far as Pensacola Beach, and it completely blackened the 
white, sugary sands. That photograph went all over the world. Pensacola 
Beach was covered up in oil, and the winds kept

[[Page 19595]]

carrying it forward. Some of it got into Choctawhatchee Bay and the 
sands of Destin, and some of the tar balls went as far east as the 
Panama City Beach. Then the winds shifted and carried it back, and that 
was the extent of the oil on the beach.
  For 1 solid year--a tourist year--the tourists did not come to the 
west coast of Florida because they had seen the pictures of what had 
happened to Pensacola Beach, all of the way down the west coast--the 
Tampa Bay area, Sarasota, the Fort Myers area, Naples, Marco Island. 
The tourists did not come.
  Now let's go back to the Atlantic. When you start to do this, you are 
now threatening the lifeblood of Florida's economy, its tourism-driven 
economy. It is not only a threat to the environment, but it is a threat 
to the multibillion-dollar, tourism-driven economy.
  In 2010, we lost an entire season, as the tourists did not come to 
the west coast of Florida. That is why, when I gave the list of all of 
those entities, including the U.S. Department of Defense, they don't 
want it. It is because of the military areas. I also mentioned the 
chambers of commerce. They have awakened to the fact that oil on 
beaches is a killer of our economy. When this plan is announced later 
today, probably, it will not be unusual to see local governments spring 
into action, like the Broward County Board of Commissioners, which has 
already sent letters that oppose drilling off of Florida's coast.
  Floridians understand this issue. That is why, in the past, we have 
had such bipartisan agreement all over Florida--Republicans and 
Democrats alike--to keep drilling off of our coast, but if Big Oil gets 
its way, every inch of the Continental Shelf is going to be drilled. We 
saw what happened less than a decade ago. The scientists would say we 
are still uncovering, for example, the full extent of that BP oilspill 
and its damage.
  I urge our colleagues to take up the bill that was filed earlier this 
year by this Senator, Senator Markey, and others that would block an 
attempt by the administration to open up our coast to oil drilling.
  The stakes are extremely high for the economy of our States all along 
the eastern coast. Georgia has a substantial tourism-driven economy. 
You know South Carolina has Myrtle Beach. What about North Carolina? 
What about Virginia's tourism-driven economy and especially with all of 
the military concentration there? You can go right on up the coast. The 
stakes are exceptionally high. We simply can't risk it.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________