[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19595-19602]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


           Funding the Government and the Republican Tax Bill

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as everybody knows, the Republican Party 
now controls the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and the White House. We 
also know that unless a budget agreement is reached by December 22, the 
U.S. Government will shut down, which will cause serious harm to our 
country, including the men and women in the Armed Forces and our 
veterans.
  I do not know why the Republican Party, which controls all the 
branches of government, wants to shut down our government. I think that 
is wrong, and I think a shutdown will be very hurtful to people from 
coast to coast.
  Earlier this year, President Trump tweeted: ``Our country needs a 
good shutdown.'' I strongly disagree. I don't think we need a good 
shutdown; I think we need to reach an agreement on a budget that works 
for the middle class of our country and not just the wealthiest people.
  It is no great secret that we are living in a nation that has almost 
unprecedented income and wealth inequality, at least since the 1920s. 
We have the top one-tenth of 1 percent owning almost as much wealth as 
the bottom 90 percent.
  I don't believe that now is the time to give massive tax breaks to 
the wealthiest people in this country in a horrific tax bill and then 
at the end of 10 years raise taxes on 83 million middle-class families. 
I think that makes no sense. I don't think it makes much sense to be 
passing a tax bill that gives 62 percent of the benefits to the top 1 
percent.
  Apparently it is not good enough for my Republican colleagues that 
corporate America today is enjoying recordbreaking profits and that the 
CEOs of large corporations are earning more than 300 times what their 
employees make. What the tax bill would do is give over $1 trillion in 
tax breaks to large, profitable corporations at a time when already one 
out of five of these major corporations is paying nothing in taxes. 
That is apparently not good enough--we need to lower taxes for large 
corporations even more.
  Right now as we speak, legislation is being written behind closed 
doors by the House Freedom Caucus and other Members of the extreme 
rightwing to provide a massive increase in funding for the Pentagon for 
the rest of the fiscal year, while only providing temporary and 
inadequate funding for the needs of the working families of this 
country, including education, affordable housing, nutrition, 
environmental protection, and other vital programs.
  What we have seen over the last year is a Republican effort to throw 
30 million people off of health insurance. What we then see is a 
Republican effort to give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1 
percent and large corporations and at the end of 10 years raise taxes 
on middle-class families. Now what we are seeing on the part of the 
Republican Party is an effort to increase military spending by $54 
billion while ignoring the needs of a struggling middle class. We have 
to get our priorities right and maybe--just maybe--we have to start 
listening to what the American people want, not just what wealthy 
campaign contributors want.
  In terms of the Republican so-called healthcare bill, the repeal of 
the Affordable Care Act, there is massive opposition from the American 
people. In terms of this tax bill, in case you haven't seen the last 
few polls, there is massive opposition to a tax bill that gives 
incredible tax breaks to people who don't need it and raises taxes on 
the middle class. Maybe--just maybe--we should start paying attention 
to the needs of working families.
  For a start, let us be clear that since the passage of the Budget 
Control Act of 2011, Democrats and Republicans have agreed to operate 
with parity, which means if you are going to increase military 
spending, you increase programs that meet the needs of working 
families, domestic spending. There was parity in 2011 and parity three 
times after, and parity must continue. It is not acceptable to be 
talking about a huge increase in military spending and not funding the 
needs of a shrinking middle class, which desperately needs help in 
terms of education, in terms of nutrition, and so many other areas.
  Furthermore, the American people are quite clear that they want us to 
move toward comprehensive immigration reform. They understand that it 
would be a terrible, terrible, terrible thing to say to the 800,000 
young people who have lived, in most cases, their entire lives in the 
United States of America: We are ending the DACA Program. You are going 
to lose your legal status. You are not going to be able to go to 
school. You are not going to be able to hold a job. You are not going 
to be able to be in the military. We are taking away the legal status 
that you now have, and you will be subject to deportation. That is not 
what the American people want. They want to continue the DACA Program, 
and, in fact, they want comprehensive immigration reform--and now. Now 
is the time to deal with that.

[[Page 19596]]

  I am happy to say that on this issue, there are a growing number of 
Republicans in the House and in the Senate who understand that in 
America, you are not going to throw 800,000 of our brightest young 
people, who are serving in the military and holding important jobs, out 
of this country by withdrawing their legal status.
  I have been deeply involved, as have Senator Blunt and others, in the 
Community Health Center Program, which is so important for the people 
of our country. Twenty-seven million Americans today receive their 
healthcare through community health centers, which provide primary 
care, provide mental health counseling--so important today--provide 
dental care, and provide low-cost prescription drugs. While my 
Republican colleagues have been busy trying to throw 30 million people 
off of health insurance, while they have been busy trying to give a 
trillion dollars in tax breaks for the rich and for large corporations, 
somehow they have not had the time to extend the CHIP program or the 
Community Health Center Program. How in God's Name can we be talking 
about tax breaks for billionaires and not extending a health insurance 
program for the children of our country? If the CHIP program is not 
reauthorized, 9 million children and working families will lose their 
health insurance.
  Let us get our priorities right. Let us immediately pass legislation 
extending and funding the CHIP program and the Community Health Center 
Program.
  In the Midwest, as you well know, and all over this country, we have 
a major crisis in terms of pensions. So many of our older workers are 
scared to death about retiring because they have very little or nothing 
in the bank as they end their work careers. If Congress does not act 
soon, the earned pension benefits of more than 1.5 million workers and 
retirees in multiemployer pension plans could be cut by up to 60 
percent. People who have worked their entire lives, people who have put 
money into a pension program, people who have given up wage increases 
in order to gain decent pensions now stand the possibility of seeing 
their pensions cut by up to 60 percent. How can we do that? How do you 
tell someone who has worked their entire life, who is looking forward 
to a decent retirement, that we are going to cut their pension by up to 
60 percent? We cannot do that. When a worker is promised a pension 
benefit after a lifetime of hard work, that promise must be kept. 
Congress needs to act before the end of the year to make sure that no 
one in America in a multiemployer pension plan will see their pension 
cut. Yes, I also think that is more important than tax breaks for 
billionaires.
  We need to make a downpayment on universal childcare. In my State of 
Vermont and all over this country, it is increasingly difficult for 
working families to find high-quality, affordable childcare. We must, 
in my view, double the funding for the Childcare and Development Block 
Grant to provide childcare assistance for 226,000 more children and 
move toward universal childcare for every kid in America. What the 
social sciences tell us is that there is no better investment than 
early childhood education. Every dollar we invest there is paid back 
many times over by kids doing better at school and by kids getting out, 
getting jobs, and becoming taxpayers.
  There is another crisis in this country that has to be dealt with. 
Ten years ago, Congress passed the Public Service Loan Forgiveness 
Program to support Americans who enter public service careers--
teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers, social workers, and 
military personnel. One of the absurdities that exists in America today 
is that we have tens of millions of Americans who are paying outrageous 
interest rates on their student debt. People who have done the right 
thing by trying to get the best education they could are now being 
punished because they went to college, went to graduate school, and are 
having to pay a significant part of their income back to the government 
in terms of their student debt. Congress must address this issue, and 
there is legislation to make sure that, at the very least, if you are 
prepared to go into public service work--if you want to be a teacher, a 
nurse, a firefighter, a police officer, a social worker, or want to go 
into the military--we will forgive your debt. That is an issue that 
should be dealt with before the end of the year.
  We have a crisis in terms of our rural infrastructure, and I come 
from a rural State. In the year 2017, soon to be 2018, how does it 
happen that in rural communities all over America there are inadequate 
broadband capabilities? How do you start a small business in a small 
town if you don't have good-quality broadband? How do the kids do well 
in school if they can't gain access to the internet? This is the United 
States of America, and we should not be trailing countries all over the 
world that have better broadband access at lower costs than we do. If 
we want to grow rural America, if we want our kids to stay in rural 
America, we have to deal with the collapsing infrastructure in this 
country, especially in rural America.
  Mr. President, I don't have to tell you--because Ohio has been hit 
hard, as has Vermont, New Hampshire, and all over this country--that we 
have a terrible, terrible epidemic in terms of opioid addiction. I am 
trying to deal with this issue in the State of Vermont, and I know it 
is severe in Ohio. We have to be adequately funding programs that focus 
on prevention, making sure that our young people do not get trapped 
into a life of addiction. We have to provide the kinds of treatment 
people need. We cannot ignore this. This is an epidemic that is 
sweeping this country. More people will die this year from opioid 
overdoses than died during the entire war in Vietnam. We have to 
adequately fund treatment and prevention for the epidemic that we are 
seeing in terms of opioids.
  We ought to keep our promises to our veterans. We now have tens of 
thousands of positions at the Veterans Administration that have not 
been filled, and we need to make sure they are filled so that the 
veterans of our country, when they go into the VA, get high-quality 
care in a timely manner, which they are entitled to.
  There was an article, I think it was in the Washington Post, a couple 
of weeks ago that talked about the fact that 10,000 people died in the 
last year, waiting for a decision on Social Security disability 
benefits. In other words, you have people who desperately need these 
benefits; they have applied for these benefits through the Social 
Security Administration, and they wait and they wait and they wait. 
Unbelievably, in the last year, 10,000 people died while they were 
waiting for a decision from the Social Security Administration. This 
has everything to do with the fact that there have been budget cuts in 
recent years that have been significant and have resulted in the loss 
of more than 10,000 employees in the Social Security Administration, 
the closing of 64 field offices, and reduced hours in many others. In 
Vermont, one field office has seen its staffing cut by 30 percent. We 
have to adequately fund the Social Security Administration so that our 
elderly and our disabled can get due process in terms of the benefits 
for which they have filed.
  In 2016, the National Park Service recorded over 330 million visits 
to national parks and over $11 billion in deferred maintenance. In 
other words, our national parks are very, very popular, but they are 
not getting the maintenance work they need. Meanwhile, the President 
wants to double fees for people visiting our beautiful national parks. 
This is an issue we must deal with.
  The bottom line is that we are coming toward the end of the year, and 
we have a lot of work to do, but the work we do has to start reflecting 
the needs of the working people of this country, not just the 
billionaire class. We cannot give $54 billion more to the military and 
ignore the needs of our children, our elderly, our sick, our poor. We 
have to come up with a budget proposal that works for all of us and not 
just wealthy campaign contributors. As a member of the Budget 
Committee, I expect to be very active in that process.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page 19597]]




                               Healthcare

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I stand today to call for bipartisan 
action on several things that are really critical. One of them has 
become routine, since it started as a bill that Democrats and 
Republicans did together. That was the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, something that my colleague from Vermont has referenced.
  In my State, we have been a good-government State. We have had a 
budget surplus for years, and, believe it or not, we relied on the fact 
that Congress would come through and do what they were supposed to do 
and reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, but that 
didn't happen. As a result, we have a slight budget deficit--something 
we haven't had for years. But it really hit home when I called our 
budget director in the State and I said: How did this happen when we 
have had these surpluses?
  He said: Well, we actually thought that you guys would reauthorize 
the Children's Health Insurance Program, but you didn't.
  Instead, what we have seen is a tax bill that adds over a trillion 
dollars to the debt. Even when you take into account any economic gain 
from that bill, a nonpartisan group said that it would, in fact, add $1 
trillion to the debt. That is what we are doing instead of 
reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, which makes no 
sense to me.
  Funding for CHIP expired more than 2 months ago, even though, as I 
said, it is one of the success stories out of this Congress. Both 
parties have come together for years to support this program that 
provides healthcare to millions of children across the country.
  In Minnesota, these funds support coverage for more than 125,000 
kids. Just last week, my State estimated that failing to reauthorize 
CHIP would cost us $178 million. That is why the deficit was at $188 
million. So the CHIP funding that our State has come to rely on through 
Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents has suddenly gone 
away--that is why we have a deficit--while at the same time, a decision 
has been made by my colleagues on the other side to add over $1 
trillion to the debt. I don't know what to tell the people in my State, 
except that tax cuts for the wealthy appear to be a priority rather 
than reauthorizing this bill to help kids get their health insurance. 
Guess what. They don't understand that reasoning.
  States like mine are running out of ways to make Federal funding last 
a little bit longer. Every single day that we don't act puts coverage 
at risk for millions of kids. Some States have already been forced to 
tell parents to start making other plans for their kids' healthcare. No 
parent should ever have to worry about whether their child will have 
healthcare. We must keep this strong program going. I have also heard 
from families with kids who get treatment at the children's hospitals 
and clinics of Minnesota and who count on this program for the medical 
care they need. That is why we must pass the bipartisan bill Senators 
Hatch and Wyden have put together to extend CHIP for 5 years--so we can 
stop this nonsense and tell people back at home that actually something 
is working here.
  In 2015, the last time we renewed the program, it passed the Senate 
with 92 votes. We should demonstrate that same bipartisan spirit again. 
We should not hold these kids hostage with this bickering, and we 
certainly shouldn't be holding all of the States hostage either. This 
makes no sense. We must act before it is too late, or States like mine 
will not just have a deficit as a result of this, they will be forced 
to make difficult choices about insurance coverage for some of our most 
vulnerable constituents. CHIP is one part of our healthcare system that 
nearly everyone agrees works. We should be doing everything in our 
power to protect it.
  In addition to CHIP, the American people want us to work together to 
make fixes to the Affordable Care Act. They don't want us to repeal it; 
we have seen that in the numbers. They want us to make some sensible 
changes. You can never pass a bill with that kind of breadth and reach 
without making some changes to it. I said on the day that it passed 
that it was a beginning and not an end.
  I am a cosponsor of the bill Senator Alexander and Senator Murray 
have put together because it is an important step forward and exactly 
the type of sensible, bipartisan legislation that we should pass. The 
bill has 11 Republican cosponsors and 11 Democratic cosponsors. Patient 
groups, doctor groups, and consumer groups have praised it, including 
the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the 
Arthritis Foundation--and those are just some of the A's. There are 
hundreds of national health groups who support this bill. They have 
Democratic members and they have Republican members. They just want to 
get something done.
  Senators Alexander and Murray held a series of hearings and 
discussions on commonsense solutions to bring down insurance costs with 
Senators on both sides of the aisle.
  I fought for a provision in this bipartisan legislation that would 
help States like mine apply for and receive waivers. This was put 
together, by the way, in our State by a Republican legislature and a 
Democratic Governor. It is a plan that would bring down premium costs, 
a plan that made sense across the board and was broadly supported in 
our State. Our Federal Government should be encouraging that kind of 
flexibility. The waiver we are asking for is actually something we 
would like to see other States do. The provision we included in the 
Murray-Alexander bill would encourage other States to do exactly what 
we did; that is, apply for waivers for flexibility to bring down rates 
without getting penalized.
  This bill would also expedite the review of waiver applications for 
proposals that have already been approved for other States.
  This legislation also shortens the overall time period that States 
have to wait for the Federal Government to decide whether to approve 
their waivers. The last time I checked, I thought this administration 
was touting the fact that they like to get things done, that they want 
to move things faster, and that they don't like the redtape of 
bureaucracy. Well, here we have a bill that actually says that States 
shouldn't have to wait for the Federal Government to make decisions. 
Why can't we get it passed?
  Not only does the bill improve the process for waivers--this is my 
favorite part because when you hear me talk about it, you might think, 
wow, this must be expensive. No. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office says that the Alexander-Murray bill would actually cut the 
deficit by $3.8 billion over the next 10 years because it simply gives 
States the flexibility to cope with the issues they are having in their 
own States, to adjust to their own particular circumstances, and to 
make it easier for people to afford healthcare, while saving money for 
the Federal Government. It makes no sense to delay by even 1 day the 
passage of this legislation, nor does it make any sense to cut all 
those kids off of health insurance.
  Renewing the Children's Health Insurance Program and passing Murray-
Alexander would be important steps forward, but we still must do more. 
I don't think we are going to get all my prescription drug bills passed 
by the end of the year, but we should. We won't, but we should. That 
doesn't mean I am giving up. I think the American people aren't giving 
up because they have been able to see clear-eyed what is going on 
because they are starting to see what is happening with the cost of 
their prescription drugs. The costs are skyrocketing.
  I have heard from people across Minnesota who are struggling to 
afford the medicine they need. This is about the woman in Duluth who 
told me that she chose not to fill her last prescription because that 
one drug would cost a full 25 percent of her income. This is about the 
woman in St. Paul who, even with Medicare, can't afford a $663-a-month 
cost for medicine that she needs. This is about a woman from Crystal, 
MN, who told me: ``I am practically going

[[Page 19598]]

without food to pay for my prescriptions.'' It is heartbreaking that 
this is happening in America.
  Reducing the costs of prescription drugs has bipartisan support in 
Congress, and the President has said that he cares about this. So why 
can't we get this done?
  I have one bill that has 33 cosponsors that lifts the ban that makes 
it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices for Part D prescription 
drugs for 41 million American seniors. Yes, right now, it is in law 
that we can't negotiate for 41 million seniors. Last time I checked, I 
think they would have a lot of bargaining power, but right now, we 
can't do that.
  A bill Senator McCain and I have would allow Americans to bring safe, 
less expensive drugs from Canada.
  A third bill that Republican Senator Grassley and I have is to stop 
something called pay-for-delay, where big pharmaceutical companies 
actually pay off their generic competitors to keep less expensive 
products off the market. How can that kind of practice be any good for 
American consumers? Guess what. It is not. We need to put an end to 
this outrageous practice. This bill would save taxpayers $2.9 billion.
  Senator Lee and I have a bill that would allow temporary importation 
of safe drugs that have been on the market in another country for at 
least 10 years when there isn't healthy competition for that drug in 
this country. Believe me, there are plenty of areas where we don't have 
healthy competition, where Americans aren't getting the kinds of deals 
they should get.
  I have a bipartisan bill with Senators Grassley, Leahy, Feinstein, 
Lee, and several others called the CREATES Act to put a stop to other 
pharmaceutical company tactics--such as refusing to provide samples--
that delay more affordable generic drugs from getting to consumers. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would 
save approximately $3.6 billion.
  People in this Chamber are talking about saving money. How are they 
doing it? On the backs of kids. They are talking about saving money. 
How are they doing it? On the backs of Americans who would like to 
afford premiums.
  I have laid out a number of bills that actually have been scored to 
save money. Passing the Alexander-Murray bipartisan bill would save us 
money. We have the actual accounting to show it. Allowing for less 
expensive drugs from other countries would save money for consumers. It 
is pretty easy to understand. It is called capitalism. It creates 
competition.
  For our own American drug companies--we are proud that they have 
developed lifesaving cures. They are important employers in our 
country. But if they refuse to bring down those prices and if they have 
a monopoly on the market, we should be bringing in competition. There 
are two ways to do it. One is generic, and that is making it easier to 
produce generic drugs, and also stopping big pharma companies from 
paying off generic companies--their competition--to keep their 
competitive products off the market. The other is simply allowing drugs 
from less expensive places, but safe places, like Canada. That is a 
bill I have put forward with Senator McCain, but also Senator Bernie 
Sanders and I have worked on this, as well as many others. These are 
commonsense ideas. Yet we cannot even move to a vote. Why? Because the 
pharmaceutical companies don't want us to have that vote.
  So I am asking my colleagues, No. 1, let's end the year with some 
common sense and pass two commonsense bills to help the American people 
with their healthcare, and those are the children's health insurance 
bill and the Alexander-Murray compromise to make some fixes to the 
Affordable Care Act. Then, when people are home for a week over the 
holidays, maybe they should start talking to their constituents, as I 
have. Maybe they should talk to their friends and their neighbors and 
see what they think about what is going on with prescription drug 
prices. Maybe they will come back with a New Year's resolution that 
they are no longer going to be completely beholden to the 
pharmaceutical companies, that they are willing to give the American 
people some relief and take these companies on and create some 
competition for America.
  I thought this was supposed to be a capitalistic system. In a 
capitalistic system, you do not have monopolies for certain drugs. You 
do not have a drug like insulin, which has been around for decades, 
triple, so that one elderly constituent in my State actually saves the 
drops at the bottom of the injectors so they can use them the next day. 
That is what is happening, while at the pharmaceutical companies, they 
are taking home big bonuses at the end of the year.
  I implore my colleagues, let's get these commonsense things done so 
you can go home and not think, when you are sitting there at your 
holiday dinner, that you have basically left millions of kids without 
healthcare, and then on New Year's, the next week, make a resolution to 
do what is right for your constituents, not for the pharmaceutical 
companies.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Trump administration's 
irresponsible plans to dismantle net neutrality.
  This is a very important and timely issue for Rhode Islanders. The 
Federal Communications Commission's--the FCC's--efforts to repeal net 
neutrality protections could have a devastating impact on students, 
small businesses, and ordinary Rhode Islanders who cannot afford to pay 
higher premiums on internet traffic.
  I have joined many of my Democratic colleagues in urging the FCC to 
abandon its reckless plan because it would radically alter the free and 
open internet as we know it and be an abdication of the FCC's 
responsibility to protect consumers.
  Net neutrality does something incredibly important. It requires 
internet providers to treat all data equally. Net neutrality ensures a 
level playing field for everyone on the internet. It means free and 
open access to websites and information.
  Over the past 20 years, the internet has become central to the lives 
of Rhode Islanders and, indeed, millions of Americans--practically 
every American. From students completing homework assignments to small 
businesses conducting e-commerce, or family members communicating with 
loved ones on the other side of the country or the world, the internet 
is now our primary means of communication. As such, I believe this is 
an issue of fundamental fairness and equality of opportunity.
  This proposed repeal of net neutrality protections undermines the 
principles of a free and open internet and could be an unprecedented 
giveaway to big broadband providers, benefiting a few large 
corporations at the expense of their customers who use and rely on 
affordable access to the internet every day.
  Net neutrality protections also ensure that all content is treated 
equally. Without these rules, large internet service providers may 
choose to block, throttle, or prioritize certain internet traffic. 
Without these protections, big internet service providers will be given 
the power to erect virtual toll booths for some customers and fast 
lanes for others. As a result, the repeal of net neutrality rules will 
likely be bad for consumers, businesses, students, and everyday 
Americans who cannot afford to pay additional premiums for internet 
access.
  If these rules are repealed, internet providers can essentially say, 
if you want a quick download from a Web site, you have to pay more. 
They can go to businesses and ask them to pay more for this fast 
service. They can't do that today. Everyone is treated equally.
  This is particularly important when it comes to small businesses. As 
I go around Rhode Island to small businesses, as I have done these last 
few weeks, one of the reasons they are growing is because they are 
starting to

[[Page 19599]]

take a presence on the internet. They have an internet business; they 
are beginning to sell across the country or across the globe. A small 
business in Wickford, RI, East Greenwich, RI, or Smithfield, RI, is not 
going to be able to pay the same premium for access that Amazon or a 
big corporation like Walmart can, and they will be squeezed further. 
The reason a lot of these small businesses are able to keep a store 
open in Rhode Island--or anyplace else in the country--and employ local 
workers is because they are starting to see a share of their profit 
come from the internet. They would like to see that grow, but if that 
diminishes, then the pressure on them to stay in business locally 
becomes acute.
  These are real consequences, not hypothetical. If these rules are 
repealed and net neutrality is done away with, the consequences for 
businesses, communities, and individuals will be significant.
  Let me make another example. Places of learning like our libraries, 
schools, and institutions of higher education all rely on offering 
internet access, which is already expensive. I did a press event at a 
public library, and they pay significant amounts of money so they have 
broadband access, and it is a mecca for everyone to come. The head 
librarian told me that they have people sitting on their doorsteps in 
the morning before they open and after they close so they can get a 
broadband signal from the library. Why are they doing that? You can't 
get a job today unless you can get online because that is where they 
post job offerings, that is where you have to send your resume, that is 
where you have to get the response back when you have a job interview. 
If you can't get on the internet, the chances of getting a job today 
are close to zero. It was a lot different 20, 30, or 40 years ago, when 
you could go down to the factory, fill out the form, pass it over the 
divider to the person in charge, and they would give you a telephone 
call back or you would come back in a few days and see how you were 
doing.
  Local libraries are also the place where students across Rhode Island 
and the Nation gain access to the internet to do their homework, apply 
to college and financial aid, and explore the world around them. This 
is particularly the case in poorer neighborhoods. They can't afford to 
have computers or internet in their home. If you go to the public 
library in South Providence, right next to St. Michael's Church, in the 
afternoon, the kids are all there and are on the computers doing their 
homework. They can't do that, in many cases, at home. They simply don't 
have the access.
  We are always sitting around here talking about how we have to 
educate our young people and how we have to get them ready for a 
technologically challenging world, and then we are about to pull the 
rug right out from underneath them because that library will not be 
able to afford access to some sites that these young people need.
  It is not just the young people who are using the libraries; it is 
also seniors who want to stay in touch with their families. There are 
functions that are so critical--as I mentioned before, you literally 
cannot apply for a job today unless you can get online. How does a 
person struggling, particularly in low-income, working-class 
neighborhoods, get online when they can't afford already expensive 
service, which could be more expensive if these rules are withdrawn and 
net neutrality is abandoned?
  I heard about all of this in detail when I visited the Providence 
Public Library. Providence is an urban center, so there are other ways, 
perhaps, to compensate for access to libraries. But when you go to a 
rural area, those libraries are especially important. More than 83 
percent of libraries report that they serve as their community's only 
provider of free internet and computing services in rural areas. If you 
need free service, the only place you can go to is the library. This is 
going to put another cost on them at a time when public-private support 
is being diminished.
  We have a tax bill pending before us that is going to eviscerate 
charitable contributions. It is going to take away the deduction. Some 
of that money goes to our public libraries. If it doesn't go there, 
they will not have access.
  I mentioned small businesses because, as I said, this is particularly 
critical. We have seen an improving economy, and for a lot of small 
businesses, that is because they are starting to have a presence on the 
internet. If that presence now comes with a higher price because the 
providers can say that if you want to get access and fast downloads, 
you have to pay X, once again, that X to a small mom-and-pop business 
could be huge. That X to an Amazon or Walmart is just a rounding error.
  We know it is going to happen. It is not fair. It undercuts what we 
think is the heart and soul--I know it is the heart and soul of our 
economy in Rhode Island for small business, and it is another big 
benefit for the well-to-do businesses that can pay more and will pay 
more. This is not a direction we should be going.
  Even more disturbing is that the FCC's proposed action may be based 
on a skewed public record. As we all know, under the Administrative 
Procedure Act, when a rule or change is proposed, they have to take 
public comments. There are credible reports that bots--the electronic 
networks of computers--impersonating Americans filed hundreds of 
thousands of phony comments to the FCC during their net neutrality 
policymaking process, thus distorting the public record. Their 
supposedly fact-based and comment-based approach could be fictitious. 
It could be a product of special interests who decided to link together 
thousands, or maybe hundreds of thousands, of computers that randomly 
generated messages--or not so randomly, but deliberately generated 
messages.
  What we have done is join our colleagues, and we have urged that the 
FCC abandon this proposal. As I said, I have joined many of my 
colleagues in asking, at least, that the FCC delay the vote on net 
neutrality until it can conduct a thorough investigation to ensure that 
it has a clear and accurate understanding of the public's view on this 
important topic. It is not based on a group of individuals and many 
electronically linked computers; it is based on the true sentiment of a 
broad range of the public. At least delay the proceeding until you can 
assure us that.
  Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. This attempt 
appears to be part of a larger program the Trump administration is 
using to roll back regulations that protect ordinary working men and 
women throughout the country. The Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, and 
the administration seem to say, very deliberately, that this is their 
goal. Just roll back regulations, without analysis that is appropriate, 
without a sensitivity to the benefits as well as the costs.
  My view is that rather than trying to limit access to the internet, 
they should be doing things to make it easier, make it cheaper for 
small businesses, for libraries, for individual Americans to get on and 
use the internet, not to take advantage of the rulemaking process to 
fatten the bottom line of big companies that are doing quite well 
already.
  It is clear that the FCC should not vote this week, or ever, to 
repeal net neutrality protections that have benefited so many Rhode 
Islanders and Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition 
to the FCC's proposed dismantling of the net neutrality rules. It is 
important. It is important for our constituents. It is important for 
our small businesses. It is important for our future generations as 
they prepare for a very complicated and challenging world, and, for 
some of them, the only way to get access to the computer is the public 
library. The only access for a small business to the new marketplace on 
the net is being able to afford to be on the net. That is all in 
jeopardy today. I hope we can stop these net neutrality rule appeals, 
and do it immediately.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, one of the most 
important and consequential choices I make is whether or not to support 
a judicial nominee.

[[Page 19600]]

  The men and women of the bench are often the final gatekeepers of our 
Nation's justice system--and the right kind of judge shows up to work 
every day to make the system work for every citizen, free from 
prejudice or bias.
  With that principle in mind, I strongly oppose the three nominees for 
the circuit court whose nominations are before the U.S. Senate.
  While President Trump has the right to make nominations, Members of 
this Senate also have the right to reject those nominations.
  It is clear, based on the records of the three nominees before us, 
that is exactly what Members of this Senate ought to do.
  Vote no.
  Don't be a rubberstamp for this President's hateful agenda or his 
obvious disdain for the rule of law.
  The first nominee this Senate should reject is Leonard Grasz, whom 
President Trump picked to serve on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. Grasz is a notable nominee but for all the wrong reasons.
  He is notable because his peers at the American Bar Association 
unanimously found Mr. Grasz ``not qualified''--just the third nominee 
in nearly 30 years to receive this distinction.
  The ABA report shows his peers questioned whether Mr. Grasz could 
look past his ``deeply-held social agenda and political loyalty to be 
able to judge objectively, with compassion and without bias.
  These are serious red flags--and it is unconscionable for any of my 
colleagues to turn a blind eye to relevant information regarding Mr. 
Grasz's ability to do his job fairly.
  I am also disturbed by the willingness of several of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle to slander the nonpartisan ABA as some sort 
of liberal front group instead of evaluating its factual assessment.
  The ABA has done this body a great service of neutral and fair 
evaluation over many decades, for which Members of the Senate should be 
grateful.
  I also have grave concerns regarding Don Willett, one of two nominees 
for the Fifth Circuit.
  Mr. Willett has been unabashed in his criticism of equal rights for 
women--expressing caustic views on pay equity, justice for sexual 
assault survivors, and age discrimination.
  He has resisted equality for LGBTQ Americans and defied the key same-
sex marriage ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
  No judge who thumbs their nose at the Supreme Court is fit for a 
lifetime appointment.
  No person who compares the right of one person to marry the person 
they love to a ``right to marry bacon'' is fit to administer justice in 
this country.
  President Trump's other nominee for the Fifth Circuit, James Ho, has 
a similarly disturbing track record on LGBTQ rights.
  He has also called for eliminating all restrictions on campaign 
finance and is an ardent defender of giving the executive branch even 
more power.
  I can see why President Trump would want Mr. Ho on the court, but Mr. 
Ho's pattern of giving more leeway to the executive branch should be 
deeply concerning to everyone else.
  In sum, the three nominees President Trump sent to this Senate for 
review fall far short of the standards this Senate should demand or 
that this country deserves.
  I want to make clear that these nominees have a completely backward 
and harmful record on women's constitutionally protected reproductive 
rights--and would seek to undermine Roe v. Wade.
  Stacking our courtrooms with judges who will bend to the will of one 
President's hateful, divisive agenda is wrong--and will not be 
forgotten.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a stand. 
Reject President Trump's politically driven attacks on women's health 
and rights. Reject efforts to chip away at fundamental rights and 
respect for the LGBTQ community, and reject his judicial nominees who 
will serve only to give him the green light to expand his own power.
  Vote no on circuit court nominees Leonard Grasz, Don Willett, and 
James Ho.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to vote against Leonard Grasz's 
nomination to serve as a circuit judge for the Eight Circuit. Mr. Grasz 
is one of two Trump judicial nominees who has received an 
``unqualified'' ranking from the nonpartisan American Bar Association, 
ABA. I am appalled that Republicans advanced this nominee out of the 
Judiciary Committee and are bringing this vote to the floor.
  Republicans have made it their mission to fill our judiciary with 
radical ideologues. The Trump administration has outsourced judicial 
nominations to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, and 
their nominees have included a nominee who believed in corporal 
punishment, one who questioned the constitutionality of the 14th 
Amendment, and one equated a woman's right to an abortion to chattel 
slavery. Many of these nominees are simply unfit to serve and 
undeserving of the prestige of receiving a lifetime appointment.
  No judge nominated by the Obama administration received an 
``unqualified'' ABA rating. When asked to clarify their rating for Mr. 
Grasz, a spokesperson for the ABA said that ``[t]he evaluators and the 
Committee found that [Mr. Grasz's] temperament issues, particularly 
bias and lack of open-mindedness, were problematic. The evaluators 
found that the people interviewed believed that the nominee's bias and 
the lens through which he viewed his role as a judge colored his 
ability to judge fairly.'' I am disappointed that, instead of insisting 
on qualified nominees, my colleagues have decided to instead attack the 
ABA's ranking system.
  I sincerely hope that many of my colleague across the aisle will vote 
no against this nominee and demand more from the Trump administration.
  Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Republican Tax Bill

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a number of Senators have inquired about 
the status of the tax legislation and, particularly, the prospect of a 
real conference committee. It is clear that Republicans are talking 
among themselves, but apparently they feel, with respect to Democrats, 
this is a conference in name only.
  What I would like to do is spell out what we know to date and talk a 
bit about what would really be in the public's interest. Specifically, 
late last night, the public learned through the press that Republicans 
have made no progress--their words, not mine--with respect to the tax 
bill.
  They said that all of the major issues were still outstanding. Then, 
when all of them got up and made their way through their breakfast 
cornflakes, we were told that, magically, everything had just been 
worked out--that everything was worked out and that this bill would be 
ready to go.
  I know they have been trying to move at the speed of light. We had 
yet another dose of fake math yesterday when the Treasury Department 
reported its so-called analysis to project that this bill would 
generate great growth, when, in fact, it comes up $1 trillion short. So 
I would like to make sure the public understands what is on offer as of 
right now.
  My sense is, with respect to the key issue, which is the well-being 
of the middle class, millions and millions of middle-class people are 
going to get hurt by this legislation, millions of them very quickly--
for example, millions are going to lose their health insurance 
coverage. Millions more are going to have high premiums. By 2027, half 
of the middle class in America will actually be paying more in taxes.
  Senate Republicans seem to be talking about a variety of issues, but 
not one of the tax issues they are talking about involves bettering the 
quality of life for America's middle class. We

[[Page 19601]]

don't hear any discussion of that. We hear plenty of discussion about 
multinational corporations. We hear plenty of discussion about rates. 
We hear discussions about pass-through businesses. But all of this is 
really like rearranging the chairs at the country club. Maybe one day 
the multinational corporations will do a little bit better; maybe the 
next day well-off heirs will do a little better. What I heard at my 
recent town hall meetings is that the American people want to make sure 
that the middle class is not always getting the shaft. They want to 
make sure, for example, that in the tax law, the breaks for the 
multinational corporations aren't permanent and the breaks for the 
middle class aren't temporary. They want everybody to have a chance to 
get ahead. It is not too late to change course.
  There are 17 moderate Democrats, led by our colleagues Senator 
Manchin and Senator Kaine, who have said that they are hungry for a 
bipartisan approach to bringing both sides together. I have introduced 
two comprehensive, bipartisan bills with senior conservative 
Republicans--close allies of Mitch McConnell's. We have made it very 
clear that we want a bipartisan bill.
  In that all of these changes are now being discussed and our fellow 
Americans can read about them in the press, take a look and see if you 
see one idea--even one--that is going to make life better for the vast 
majority of working Americans, the folks who work so hard day in and 
day out, who are walking on an economic tightrope, trying to save money 
and trying to educate their kids. We don't hear about one single idea--
not one--that would make life better for the middle class.
  We will have more to say about this tomorrow as, I gather, there may 
be some kind of ceremonial conference committee that is scheduled as 
they try to sort through all of these reports that they are getting 
from lobbyists on K Street because, I guess, lobbyists know lots about 
what the Republicans in the leadership and on the conference committee 
are talking about.
  I want Americans to just read through all of this and look, line by 
line, to try to find anything that is going to make life better for the 
middle class, because I cannot find it. That, as much as anything, 
shows what is wrong with the way this legislation is being pursued.
  What a difference from the way Ronald Reagan pursued tax reform. 
Ronald Reagan said point blank that the working person should at least 
get as good a deal as the investor. He said that we ought to have the 
same rate of taxation for workers as we have for investors. In fact, 
with Ronald Reagan--and I voted for his bill--the corporations, in 
effect, gave up some money to help the workers. Now what we are seeing 
is the workers getting the short end of the stick so that the 
multinational corporations can do even better. We will have more to say 
tomorrow.
  I urge people to look through all of these stories and all of these 
press reports and see if they can find anything that involves a change 
to make life better for the hard-working middle class of our country.


                         Remembering Vera Katz

  Mr. President, I also come this afternoon to talk about the passing 
of a vintage Oregonian and an extraordinary woman--Vera Katz--who 
became Oregon's first speaker of our house of representatives in 1985. 
After serving three terms as speaker, Vera Katz won Portland's mayoral 
race in 1992. The Oregonian noted recently that she moved Portland to 
become a ``nationally recognized destination city,'' with developments 
ranging from the Portland Streetcar to the East Bank.
  I hope that all Oregonians and visitors to our city will stop by the 
bronze sculpture of Mayor Katz. It captures perfectly her strength and 
her warmth. She was an extraordinary person whom we think about today, 
not just because of her memorable accomplishments but because of her 
extraordinary spirit. It was indomitable. She could not be subdued when 
she took on an important cause.
  I remember in 1996, when floodwaters on the Willamette River 
threatened to overwhelm downtown Portland, that, in the middle of this 
chaos, this very slight but still unbelievably powerful woman, Vera 
Katz, led hundreds of volunteers to mount what we came to call a 
sandbags-and-plywood defense against the floodwater. That was 
quintessential Vera Katz.
  In my townhalls at home, we often speak of the ``Oregon way''--just 
finding the best ideas, looking for solutions, not standoffs. She lived 
and breathed that ``Oregon way'' ethos every day of her life. I am 
going to miss her, and I am especially going to miss some moments that 
will never be forgotten.
  When we were working in the early seventies and I had gotten involved 
with the elderly, back then--I think the Presiding Officer, the Senator 
from North Dakota, probably remembers these days--that was a time when, 
if a town had a lunch program for senior citizens, that was a big deal. 
Nobody was aware that we might have all of the services that we now 
have--in-home services and a variety of transportation services. Back 
then, if a town had a lunch program for older people, that was a big 
deal. Vera Katz was then in the legislature, and I had been running the 
legal aid office for the elderly and was codirector of the Gray 
Panthers. All of the senior citizens wanted to really focus on holding 
down the cost of medicine, and they told me one day: We are going to go 
to the legislature, and we are going to take all of our pill bottles 
and stack them up on the table and show those legislators what it is 
like to really be an older person in having to cut pills in half in our 
trying to find a way to make ends meet.
  As the Presiding officer, the Senator from North Dakota, knows, I had 
never been involved in politics or in public service back then. All I 
really wanted to do was to play in the NBA. So I didn't know if you 
could do that. I didn't know if you could take all of the pill bottles 
to the legislature, so I called Vera Katz.
  I said: The seniors want to come down, Representative Katz. They want 
to hold up all the bottles. I really don't know what to do.
  I could hear it through the phone because it just boomed out.
  She said: The seniors want to bring their pill bottles to wake up the 
legislature?
  I said: Yes, ma'am.
  I could hear it through the phone when she said: Damn right. I want 
them to bring their pill bottles, and they are going to get a big 
welcome from me.
  In all of those years in working with senior citizens, the very first 
person the seniors wanted to see was Vera Katz.
  I asked them: How come we are always going to see Vera Katz?
  They said: Because she always inspires us, and she always makes us 
laugh, and she always makes us want to get involved.
  So this life force who, like my family, fled the Nazis, was an 
extraordinary public figure. Yes, she represented Portland, but she 
always stood up for all of Oregon.
  In the days ahead, I will be back to the floor to talk some more 
about Vera Katz. She had a watermelon spitting contest with folks in 
rural Oregon just because she wanted to cement the bond between 
Portland and the rural part of the State. She was a wonderful woman. 
Our State grieves today as we think of her and her extraordinary 
contributions. In my having known her for more than 40 years, she is a 
role model for what public service ought to be all about.
  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.
  Mrs. FISCHER. 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.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 30 minutes of debate 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

[[Page 19602]]

  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate has the opportunity 
today to vote on a nominee to the Eighth Circuit Court who exemplifies 
the qualities we all seek in a judge.
  Steve Grasz from Nebraska is a nominee who has earned the respect of 
his peers. He believes in the rule of law. He has the education and the 
training. He has the experience needed to prepare him for this serious 
responsibility. Steve has a keen intellect and the humility that allows 
him to show respect toward all. He has an even and calm temperament--a 
judicial temperament.
  Steve Grasz served as the chief deputy attorney general of Nebraska 
for 12 years. In that role, Mr. Grasz professionally and capably 
defended the laws of the State of Nebraska, authoring nine briefs in 
the U.S. Supreme Court. He has earned the respect of the Nebraska legal 
community. Timothy Engler, president of the Nebraska State Bar 
Association, has stated he always found Steve ``to be professional, 
civil, and ethical in all respects.'' In short, Steve is an outstanding 
Nebraskan and a talented legal mind.
  The scores of recommendation letters we have received for Steve are a 
testament to his temperament, his integrity, and his character. These 
recommendations come from a diverse group of Nebraskans, from political 
officials to church pastors, business and community leaders, and 
Steve's friends and neighbors.
  Steve has bipartisan support from those who know him best. Nebraskans 
from across the political spectrum have pointed to Steve's 
thoughtfulness, fairmindedness, high ethical standards, and brilliant 
abilities as a jurist. This includes former Democratic Governor and 
U.S. Senator Ben Nelson, who wrote that Steve ``was an asset to our 
state and Nebraskans benefited from having such a capable and 
thoughtful professional in public service. Today, he is unquestionably 
one of the foremost appellate lawyers in the state, making him an 
obvious choice for this seat on our federal appeals court.''
  Debra Gilg, the former U.S. attorney for Nebraska and a Democrat 
appointed by President Obama, said:

       Steve has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty, 
     impeccable integrity, and dedication to the rule of law. He 
     possesses an even temperament well-suited for the bench and 
     always acts with respect to all that interact with him.

  This is a nominee who should receive bipartisan support in the U.S. 
Senate as well.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put their 
lockstep partisan politics aside on these nominees and join with me and 
my Nebraska colleague in voting to confirm this decent man of integrity 
to the Eighth Circuit. I urge a ``yes'' vote on Steve Grasz.
  Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Grasz 
nomination?
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  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 Arizona 
(Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 313 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cochran
     McCain
       
  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.

                          ____________________