[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8217-8223]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of the Sullivan nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally to the two 
sides.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                           Manchester Attack

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, the Senate's thoughts and prayers 
go out to everyone in Manchester, England. Such violence is 
particularly heartbreaking when it happens, as it did in Manchester, at 
a concert with so many young people there to enjoy.
  We mourn the families of the victims of last night's terrorist 
attack. We hope the perpetrators are quickly found and brought to 
justice. I saw on TV a mother waiting, trying to email and text her 
daughter. She got no answer. She was wondering where her daughter was. 
It brought back the horrible memories for me after 9/11, the day after, 
when I went up there and saw hundreds of people holding up signs: 
``Have you seen my wife Evelyn?'' ``Have you seen my son John,'' not 
knowing if they were alive or dead. Most of them ended up being dead.
  We hope and pray that mother, and all the other mothers, fathers, 
brothers, and sisters who are waiting for news that maybe their child, 
their relative, is alive, will find them alive. Our prayers go out to 
them.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. President, now, on another matter completely, last night, it was 
reported in the Washington Post that President Trump attempted to 
enlist the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and the 
Director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Rogers, in helping 
the administration push back against reports in the press about an 
investigation into the President's campaign and its potential ties to 
Russia.
  According to the same reporting, White House staff may also have 
``sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of 
intervening directly'' with the FBI and Mr. Comey to get them to drop 
the investigation into General Flynn.
  If these reports are accurate, it is another piece of now-mounting 
evidence that this White House has no interest--no interest--in 
allowing the Russia investigation to proceed without partisan 
interference, and the White House seems to have little respect for the 
principles of the rule of law. We have not quite seen anything like it 
in a very long time.
  Such allegations only reinforce the correctness of the decision to 
appoint Special Counsel Mueller to oversee the investigation and should 
strengthen our resolve to ensure that he is insulated from interference 
from this White House. Such allegations also strengthen, again, the 
need for an independent, nonpartisan FBI Director.
  With all these reports of attempts to interfere with the 
investigation, we cannot have an FBI Director who has a political 
background, who doesn't seem right down the middle, who doesn't seem to 
be a Director's Director, a prosecutor's prosecutor, an investigator's 
investigator. No politician or candidate with insufficient impartiality 
should be selected by the President or confirmed by the Senate. We 
Democrats will stand very strongly for that.
  Given the almost daily reports about potential meddling and 
misconduct by this administration, Congress must exercise its oversight 
authority in order to keep this administration in check. Both the 
executive branch and the congressional investigations must proceed. 
This is not about politics or political advantage. When a foreign 
power, particularly an enemy of our country like Putin and Russia, 
tries to interfere in your elections--and will probably do it again in 
the future--we have to know everything that happened, who participated, 
and make sure it doesn't happen again.
  If people who participated in it--if there are such people--get away 
with it this time, many more will do it next time. So this is an issue 
of national interest, national security, and even the future of our 
democracy. I remind colleagues that in our Constitution, the Founding 
Fathers worried about foreign interference in our government. When I 
read that in high school and again in college, I said: Well, that 
doesn't seem real. It is all too real today, showing both the wisdom of 
the Founding Fathers and the need for strong oversight.


                         The President's Budget

  Mr. President, now, on the budget, today, the President will release 
his

[[Page 8218]]

full budget for fiscal year 2018. From all indications, the Trump 
budget will seek deep cuts to programs that help the middle class and 
working America while providing more handouts to the rich. It will cut 
to the bone programs that help the elderly, the poor, while adding 
money for an unnecessary, ineffective border wall that continues to 
have bipartisan opposition.
  To make all the math work, the Trump budget makes entirely unfounded 
assumptions about economic growth. In short, the Trump budget takes a 
sledgehammer to the middle class and the working poor, lavishes tax 
breaks on the wealthy, and imagines all of the deficit problems away 
with fantasy math. The Trump budget exists somewhere over the rainbow, 
where the dreams of Nick Mulvaney, Paul Ryan, and the Koch brothers 
really do come true.
  Of course, these dreams are a nightmare for the average working 
American. We expect the Trump budget will make deep cuts to the 
National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control. Let me 
ask, How many people in America want to cut cancer research when it has 
done such good? Well, President Trump evidently does. It is his budget.
  They kneecap research that develops new cures, damaging our ability 
to contain or prevent the outbreak of disease. We are all living longer 
and healthier, in part because of this research. We want to stop it, 
cut it back, so we can give tax breaks to wealthy people who, God bless 
them, are doing great already?
  We expect the Trump budget will gash programs like Meals on Wheels. I 
even read in the paper this morning that the head of the Freedom Caucus 
said that even for him some of these cuts were too great. The SNAP 
benefits, making sure no kid goes to bed hungry in America--this is 
America. We have always done this. The Children's Health Insurance 
Program, cruelly ripping away the lifelines from Americans who need it 
the most, the children, the working poor, the elderly.
  We expect the Trump budget will cut transportation funding, education 
funding, and programs that help students repay their student loan debt. 
One of the great problems in America, the debt on the backs--the burden 
on average kids getting out of college, middle-class kids, we are going 
to make it harder? What is going on here? What is going on in the White 
House with this kind of budget?
  Our college kids, when they get out, they need to be able to live 
real good lives and not have this burden of debt on their shoulders 
which they are struggling under now. We are going to make it worse. We 
also--it is amazing but true. The Trump budget will break President 
Trump's promise to protect Social Security and Medicaid from cuts, both 
of these. He promised over and over again he would not cut Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  Medicare was not cut here, but Medicaid is and Social Security is. On 
Social Security, the budget will cut Social Security disability 
benefits to many Americans who have earned them and paid for those 
benefits. You can say: Well, it doesn't cut old-age benefits for the 
elderly. Wait. If they get away with this, the elderly will be next on 
the chopping block because the goal, it seems, of this budget is to cut 
everything you can so you can give even more tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people--the Koch brothers type of thinking.
  It will also seek hundreds of billions of dollars--additional cuts--
in Medicaid. The budget cuts Medicaid on top of the cuts that were made 
in the House bill for TrumpCare. What will that do? Medicaid has become 
a middle-class program. For sixty percent of the people in nursing 
homes, Medicaid funds it.
  What are we going to tell a couple with three kids? Say, they are 40 
or 45. They have three kids. They are saving for college, they are 
struggling, but at least they know that mom or dad, who needs help, is 
in a nursing home. If this budget passes, that family is going to have 
a terrible choice: Take hundreds of dollars a month out of their own 
budget and give it to pay for the nursing home or find a place for mom 
and dad to live, maybe at home. Maybe there is no room in the house. It 
is awful. That is what they are doing.
  What else will it hurt? Opioid addiction. Much of the progress we are 
trying to make on opioid addiction comes through Medicaid because they 
give treatment. We need law enforcement--I am a tough law enforcement 
guy; you know that--but we also need treatment. I have had fathers cry 
in my arms because their sons--in this case, it was both sons--were 
waiting online for treatment and died of an overdose. What a burden a 
parent has to live with. We should cut that and cut it to give more tax 
breaks to the rich? It is an America turned upside down--this budget.
  How about rural areas? I represent New York State. It is known for 
its big city, New York City. We have other great cities upstate, but we 
also have the third largest rural population in America. So I am very 
familiar with rural America. In many of my counties in upstate New 
York--and this is true in rural counties throughout America--the 
largest employer is the rural hospital. That hospital is the only 
hospital around for miles and miles and miles if, God forbid, you have 
a stroke and you have to be rushed there to get better.
  Well, go talk to our rural hospitals. These rural hospitals are the 
beating heart of our local economy, employing hundreds, sometimes even 
thousands, of people. Well, nearly one in three rural hospitals today 
is at risk of closure. It is more expensive to run a rural hospital. 
People in rural areas are entitled to the same healthcare, so that 
means buying all these fancy machines. In an urban area, those machines 
can run 24/7 and get the reimbursement back, but in a rural area they 
can't. There are not that many people, but they get some help.
  The Trump cuts to Medicaid would cause a whole bunch of these rural 
hospitals to close and many more to lay off employees, hurting 
healthcare in rural America, and hurting jobs in rural America--places 
that need help.
  The Trump budget on top of TrumpCare, which seeks more than $800 
billion in cuts to Medicaid, would decimate healthcare options for 
rural Americans and pull the plug on many of these rural hospitals. 
Some of my colleagues will be talking more about that this morning.
  When you add all of it up, the Trump budget is comic-book-villain 
bad. Just like comic books, it relies on a fantasy to make all the 
numbers work. It is the kind of budget you might expect from someone 
who is openly rooting for a government shutdown. Haven't we heard the 
President say that? It is the latest example of the President breaking 
his promises to working Americans. This budget breaks promise after 
promise after promise that the President made to what he called the 
forgotten America, the working men and women of America. He said that 
he would help them, and this budget goes directly against them.
  In his speech to Congress, for instance, earlier this year the 
President called education ``the civil rights issue of our time,'' but 
his budget guts vital school programs, our future, our kids. He said: 
``Cures to illnesses that have always plagued us are not too much to 
hope,'' but his budget slashes funding at the NIH and CDC where they do 
this research. And he said: ``Save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security without cuts. Have to do it,'' but his budget cuts Social 
Security disability insurance and ends Medicaid as we know it.
  The Trump budget is one giant, brazen, broken promise to the working 
men and women of America. It completely abandons them. Fundamentally, 
this is a deeply unserious proposal that should roundly be rejected by 
both parties here in Congress. I am optimistic that is what will 
happen.
  We should follow the same blueprint we did in the 2017 budget: Both 
Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, in a bipartisan way, 
everyone compromised. We should get together, negotiate a serious 
proposal that maintains our commitments to the middle class and 
actually sets up our economy to grow.
  We cannot let the President turn America inside out with his budget. 
We

[[Page 8219]]

have to stand together, Democrats and Republicans, and reject it for 
the sake of middle-class and working Americans. The Trump budget 
hopefully will not see the light of day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it was quite edifying to be sitting here 
listening to the Democratic leader speak this morning during the 
morning remarks, expressing his concern for healthcare, rural 
hospitals, and talking about his concerns about delivering healthcare 
to the poor. It is indeed ironic because at a time when ObamaCare, the 
Affordable Care Act, is literally in meltdown with unaffordable 
premiums and deductibles, we are not seeing any help whatsoever from 
our Democratic colleagues. I would suggest, rather than rail against 
the President's budget, they ought to be engaged in a more constructive 
process of working with us to make sure we can deliver on the promise 
of affordable healthcare to all Americans.
  Of course, there is the matter of the President's budget itself. I 
remember that President Obama's last budget got voted on here in the 
U.S. Senate. It got one vote--one vote. A President's budget is not 
binding on the Congress. The Congress passes a budget resolution, both 
houses, and we anticipate doing that again.
  The President's budget is really a statement of the President's 
priorities. Frankly, there are some things in the President's proposed 
budget that I think are worthwhile--things like securing our border. At 
the end of the day, it is the job of Congress, though, to pass a budget 
that reflects the priorities of our country.
  I think it is worth pointing out that several aspects of the 
President's budget are encouraging and a welcome change from the 
previous administration. For one, it balances in 10 years. I would love 
to have our Democratic colleagues express some concern for the fact 
that we continue to spend money we don't have and impose the burden of 
repaying that money someday on future generations. To me, that is one 
of the most immoral things we do in this country; we spend the money 
today, and we leave the debt to our children and grandchildren to pay 
that back, which they must at some point. So when the President 
proposes a budget that actually balances in 10 years, I think that is a 
good thing. What a welcome relief from a White House budget anchored 
around overspending and growing the size of government, which we have 
seen for the last 8 years.
  The other thing the President's budget does is reverse the defense 
sequester. This is the artificial cap we put on defense spending.
  Of all the things the Federal Government does, national security is 
the No. 1 job. You can't outsource that to anyone. It is our No. 1 
responsibility to keep the country safe and to keep America strong. 
Under the Obama administration, there was a cap put in place that 
prevented increased military spending, and indeed we saw cuts to the 
military of about 20 percent during the Obama years.
  One thing that President Trump has done, which I find a welcome sign, 
is to properly resource our military so we can better defend against 
increasing threats around the world. It is simply irresponsible for us 
to allow our men and women in the military to operate on slashed 
budgets and outdated equipment. They can't even train and be ready for 
the next fight. The best deterrent to war and the best assurance of 
peace is a strong America. The President's budget reflects a better 
understanding of the threat environment ahead, and for that I am 
grateful.
  So rather than railing against the President's budget, which he knows 
will not be passed into law--because no President's budget ever becomes 
law; it is a proposal of the President's priorities. As I said, there 
is much to like among the President's priorities--balancing the budget, 
emphasizing national security spending, and the like. Ultimately, we 
will have to come up with a budget ourselves. So I find the Democratic 
leader's railing against the President's budget, which he knows will 
not become law as written, somewhat ironic.


                            Border Security

  Mr. President, on another matter, I have the privilege of serving as 
the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and 
Immigration. It is a role I take seriously in light of the many 
challenges our Nation faces when it comes to security and trade along 
our southern border.
  The Texas-Mexico border makes up more than 60 percent of the total 
U.S. southern border. That means Texas is at the epicenter of the 
national security conversation when it comes to border security and 
protecting communities that thrive on cross-border trade, not to 
mention the U.S. economy that reaps 5 million jobs as a result of 
binational trade with Mexico alone.
  Later today, the subcommittee will have a chance to examine this 
important topic and consider ways that Congress can help the Trump 
administration make America safer and our borders stronger. In 
particular, I look forward to hearing from Chief Ron Vitiello, who is 
currently Acting Deputy Commissioner for Customs and Border Protection. 
He actually is the head Border Patrol agent for the Federal Government, 
a man who has spent many years on the frontlines and knows from 
experience the challenges that exist in securing the border.
  Customs and Border Protection agents and officers face a range of 
challenges every day, working in some of the most inhospitable 
environments and remote locations, often without adequate resources or 
equipment. They work tirelessly to combat drug trafficking, arms 
smuggling, illegal immigration, and human trafficking, while 
simultaneously working to facilitate legitimate trade and travel 
between Mexico and the United States.
  I spoke a little bit about this yesterday in light of NAFTA's 
importance to the Texas and U.S. economy. Texas is a first port of 
entry for many goods and many people coming from all over the world, 
and it takes a solid team of Customs and Border Patrol professionals 
and good leadership to manage the border and the many ports of entry 
along it. I am grateful to Chief Vitiello for his hard work and look 
forward to his testimony this afternoon.
  This administration has made clear that securing the border is a top 
priority, and I agree with that. I am confident that with topnotch 
leaders like Secretary Kelly of the Department of Homeland Security and 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, we will finally make real progress 
toward getting it done.
  The appropriations bill that was recently signed into law included 
the largest increase for border security technologies and 
infrastructure improvement in more than a decade. Fortunately, the 
President's budget supports increased investment in border security and 
immigration enforcement, as well, including new infrastructure and 
technologies to help us achieve operational control of the southern 
border. This focus on border security is a welcome change from the 
previous administration, and I am glad we now have leaders who will 
take the need to achieve true border security seriously.
  I have always said that border security ultimately is a matter of 
political will. The Obama administration didn't have it; the Trump 
administration does. With the political will and with the guidance of 
experts like Chief Vitiello and others who tell us exactly what the 
Border Patrol needs in order to secure the border, I am confident of 
our ability to get it done.
  I will just relate the conversation I had with the Chief of the Rio 
Grande Border Patrol sector, Chief Manny Padilla. Chief Padilla long 
served in the Border Patrol in many different places along the border.
  Of course, the border is very different in San Diego than it is in 
the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. For one thing, Texas has virtually all 
private property along the border and, of course, is separated by the 
Rio Grande River from Mexico.
  What Chief Padilla has said to me, which I believe is absolutely the 
case, is that it takes three different things to secure the border. It 
takes infrastructure. You can call it fencing, like the Secure Fence 
Act that we passed a

[[Page 8220]]

few years ago that almost all of our Democratic colleagues voted for. 
It takes things like levy walls, which we have in Hidalgo County and 
the Rio Grande Valley. But it also takes technology and personnel 
because we know that no piece of infrastructure alone is going to 
provide the security we need. But fundamentally we need to regain the 
people's trust and confidence that the Federal Government will carry 
out its primary responsibility to protect our citizens and defend our 
borders.
  Border security is complex. It is multifaceted and requires an 
approach that includes air, sea, and land. That is why we need a 
multilayered approach to border security that includes infrastructure, 
like the President talks about frequently when he talks about the wall. 
It takes technology, and it takes the men and women in the Border 
Patrol who do the dangerous but important work of keeping our border 
secure and keeping our country safe.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on cloture on 
the nomination of John Sullivan, the nominee to be Deputy Secretary of 
State, and as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion and 
support the nomination of John Sullivan to be the next Deputy Secretary 
of State.


                           Manchester Attack

  Before I begin, I want to express that I strongly condemn yesterday's 
heartbreaking attack in Manchester. I want to express my sincere 
condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones, especially 
the innocent and defenseless children who were brutally killed. As a 
father and grandfather, I mourn with them, and I am praying for the 
recovery of the injured.
  The United States stands in firm solidarity with our friends in the 
United Kingdom. The United States will provide the necessary assistance 
as British authorities work to bring those responsible to justice. I 
know I speak for all my colleagues in the Senate in our solidarity with 
our friends in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. President, in regard to Mr. Sullivan's nomination to be Deputy 
Secretary of State, he is well qualified for that position. He served 
in the Justice Department and in the private practice of law. He served 
as Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Defense. He also has 
been involved in the Department of Commerce, where he was General 
Counsel and Deputy Secretary. He is well familiar with government. He 
served in public positions and also brings private experience as a 
lawyer to the position of Deputy Secretary of State.
  I do want to point out--as I pointed out to Mr. Sullivan and as most 
members of our committee did--that he will find himself home alone for 
a period of time, in that the Trump administration has not submitted to 
Congress nominees for important positions at the Department of State. 
Yes, I have confidence in the career people at the Department of State, 
but there are times that we have to have a confirmed person in control 
in order to advance policies. So it is important--from embassy 
security, to fighting terrorism, to helping with the humanitarian 
challenges we have around the world and the administration of our 
missions in all the countries around the world--that we have a team in 
place. The Trump administration has been slow in providing us with 
qualified individuals to fill these positions. Thus far, the 
administration has decided to treat the State Department as an 
inconvenience rather than as a critical national security asset.
  Secondly, I want to express my concern about something that will make 
Mr. Sullivan's job a lot more difficult--the international affairs 
budget for fiscal year 2018 that the administration is unveiling today. 
Although we are still receiving details, as I look at the massive 
spending cuts to vital national security, it is impossible to conclude 
this is anything but an ``America alone'' budget--one that, if enacted, 
will have disastrous effects on our standing in the world.
  Let me repeat one more time that the money we spend on development 
assistance, on diplomacy, and that we spend in regard to helping our 
allies around the world and countries around the world is part of our 
national security budget. It is part of our national security budget, 
and yet the President's fiscal year 2018 budget would compromise 
national security.
  As Secretary Mattis has said--often quoted on this floor--if you 
don't give the Secretary of State and the State Department the 
resources they need, you better be prepared to give them more 
ammunition and more soldiers because it is going to be more costly for 
them to defend.
  It is very disappointing that the budget slashes critical support to 
our allies in their efforts to defeat terrorism, including zeroing out 
counterinsurgency support in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. It will 
slash funds to support the defense needs of countless foreign partner 
countries and offer them the unpalatable option of going into debt to 
the United States to get the defense equipment and support they need. 
This is certain to damage our security, counterterrorism, and security 
interests with these countries and prove a golden opportunity for 
Russia and China to take the place of the United States. This is 
serious business. If we don't help countries that are part of our 
coalition against terrorism, if we don't give them the resources to 
help us, then, quite clearly, our enemies will move in. As we know, 
Russia has done many things against U.S. interests. The voids will be 
quickly picked up by Russia and China.
  This is a budget proposal that cuts support to European allies to 
counter Russia's aggression--precisely when Russia's assault on our 
democracy and the democracies of our European democracies has reached a 
fever pitch. At a time when the United States should be standing up for 
our allies and partners in Europe, this budget zeros out the Assistance 
for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia--AEECA--account and eliminates the 
European Reassurance Initiative altogether. This was an initiative that 
was set up to counter Russia's influence in Europe, and we are going to 
zero that out?
  This is a budget proposal that walks away from the promotion of 
democratic values. It slashes funding for human rights and democracy 
programs abroad and hollows out the ideas, initiatives, and 
institutions on which U.S. leadership and international order rests, 
like the United Nations Peacekeeping.
  In his remarks in Saudi Arabia this past weekend, President Trump 
applauded Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon for their role in hosting 
refugees. Yet draconian humanitarian funding cuts would harm these very 
friends and allies who are hosting millions of refugees. What an 
inconsistent message. It also eliminates the U.N. emergency food aid 
program at a time of famine in Africa and the Middle East. If these 
budget cuts are implemented, many people around the world will die as a 
result of diminished resources and support that would result. We can't 
let that happen.
  It is a budget proposal that undermines our ability to deal with 
pressing national security challenges, including development 
assistance, humanitarian aid, and climate change. The administration's 
budget proposal slashes more than 30 percent from our foreign 
assistance budget and dramatically cuts support for critical programs 
to save the lives of mothers in childbirth, feed hungry children, 
educate young people, train farmers, and the like. These programs 
exemplify U.S. values and promote the power of democracy and the 
importance of protecting human rights.
  America's trademark is its values, what we stand for, our leadership 
globally, and this budget would compromise our ability to promote 
American values.
  This is a penny wise, pound foolish budget, as the security 
challenges that will grow from these humanitarian catastrophes will 
dwarf the cost of helping to address the challenges before they 
metastasize into failed states and havens for extremism. If we don't 
help, we will have to pay on the other end.

[[Page 8221]]

  When we fail to help countries provide the stability they need to 
take care of their population, they become a breeding ground for 
terrorists. We then have to respond with the use of our military, and 
it is much more costly. It costs people their lives.
  Climate change--perhaps the most pressing national security challenge 
that faces the globe in the 21st century--receives less than just 
neglect; this is a budget that actively provides a catastrophic effect 
on climate-induced instability. We will not be able to respond to our 
international obligations in regard to climate change.
  I understand that for Mr. Sullivan, if confirmed, this is the budget 
proposal he has to accept and defend; however, both he and Secretary 
Tillerson should be put on notice that I--and I think I speak for a 
number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--consider this 
budget dead on arrival. I would call on him to consider how, if 
confirmed, he will work with the Senate to develop a more serious 
budget proposal over the coming months that safeguards and promotes 
American interests in the world, that deepens our partnerships and 
alliances, that is sufficient to meet the challenges of an increasingly 
aggressive Russia and increasingly assertive China on the world stage, 
that provides our Nation the tools it needs to address the pressing 
humanitarian crises and challenges, and that supports and defends our 
universal values in the best tradition of our Nation.
  That is what we need to do as a Congress. We are the ones who will 
pass the budget. We are the ones who have the responsibility to make 
sure our budget speaks to our priorities, our values, and our national 
interests. Yet it is very disappointing to see the President of the 
United States submit a budget that is just the opposite of what it 
should be in regard to putting money toward American values and 
national security. We will be looking upon Mr. Sullivan, if he is 
confirmed, to work with us so we can develop a budget that really 
speaks to American values and American interests.
  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. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of John J. Sullivan, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of 
     State.
         Mitch McConnell, Cory Gardner, Tom Cotton, Roy Blunt, 
           Jeff Flake, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Ron Johnson, 
           James E. Risch, Joni Ernst, John Thune, Mike Rounds, 
           Orrin G. Hatch, Bob Corker, David Perdue, John Hoeven, 
           James M. Inhofe.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). By unanimous consent, the 
mandatory quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of John J. Sullivan, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of 
State, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 93, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 134 Ex.]

                                YEAS--93

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

                                NAYS--6

     Booker
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Sanders
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Isakson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 93, the nays are 6.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Utah.


                              The Internet

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal 
Communication Commission's welcome proposal to end utility-style 
regulation of the internet by reversing the 2015 open internet order.
  Anyone who has followed the hyperbolic debate about net neutrality 
has likely heard that the FCC is moving to squelch competition, limit 
consumer choice, raise prices, and perhaps even destroy the internet. 
That is my favorite one. At least that is what some activists and 
crusading late-night comedians claim. But none of this is true--none of 
it.
  Rather, the FCC is reviewing the light-touch regulatory environment 
that, from the outset, facilitated the kind of innovation that produced 
the internet and expanded internet access to millions of Americans over 
the course of many years.
  In order to understand this complicated issue, we need to be honest 
about what led us to where we are today; that is, the FCC's 2015 open 
internet order. The Obama-era FCC claimed that its order implemented 
net neutrality, or the equal treatment of all data over the internet, 
but that isn't quite right. The actual change was far broader than 
that.
  The FCC reclassified broadband internet access service as a title II 
telecommunication service, instead of a title I information service. 
That might sound like a small change, but this soundingly small--some 
might even say soundingly innocuous--change applied a whole host of New 
Deal era regulations that were meant to apply to monopolistic telephone 
companies, monopolistic utility companies, and they applied those to 
the internet.
  It subjected 21st century technology to the same rules that governed 
rotary telephones in the 1930s. Why, then, did the FCC do this? It 
wasn't because a free and open internet was harming Americans. The 
activists and entertainers clamoring for more government control of the 
internet claimed that it was under attack by predatory internet service 
providers but, strangely enough, none of them actually provided 
evidence for that very serious assertion.
  If you are going to make that claim, back it up, point to evidence. 
Instead, they speak about imaginary or hypothetical harms. The 400-page 
order uses words like ``may,'' ``could,'' ``might,'' or ``potentially'' 
not just here and there, not just a few times but several hundred 
times. Nor did the FCC issue the open internet order because Congress 
told it to.
  On the contrary, nearly 20 years ago, our colleague Senator Wyden, 
along with then-Senator John Kerry and others, expressly argued against 
the drastic action that would later be taken by the FCC in 2015. After 
passing the bipartisan Telecommunications Act in 1996, this group of 
Senators affirmed the internet's status as a free and open information 
service, stating that

[[Page 8222]]

``nothing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that 
Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and 
other information services or to expand traditional telephone 
regulation to new and advanced services.''
  Finally, the FCC did not intervene because it had evidence of market 
failure. When the FCC issued its order, the internet was still an 
explosive source of growth and innovation throughout America and 
throughout the world--as it had been for decades--when greater and 
greater numbers of Americans gained access to the internet for the 
first time. Perhaps, because of this inconvenient fact, the FCC hardly 
considered the possible economic effects of its regulations. The FCC's 
chief economist at the time went so far as to say the rules were an 
``economics-free zone.''
  What the internet does need is regulatory certainty, which is why I 
recently introduced the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, along with 
several of my colleagues. This bill would fully repeal the FCC's 2015 
internet takeover. More importantly, it would prevent the FCC from 
interfering with the internet in the future unless such actions were 
specifically authorized by Congress.
  We shouldn't stop there. Instead of waiting for regulators and 
activists to find new excuses to restrict the internet, we should open 
it further to extend more choices to American consumers. In other 
words, we should ensure that Federal policy promotes competition.
  As we know from experience, heavy-handed regulations like the FCC's 
order tend to favor large, deep-pocketed companies over startups that 
can't afford an army of lobbyists in Washington. Removing these 
regulatory barriers will allow upstart entrepreneurs to compete with 
incumbents for consumers' loyalty. Those consumers--ordinary Americans 
and their families--will benefit from the improved service and lower 
prices that this kind of competition inevitably creates.
  Most American households currently have access to at least one 
internet service provider. Many have access to two or more, which might 
look like a competitive market exists for those households, but 
regulations can keep these different options from being adequate 
substitutes for one another.
  The government restricts access to valuable resources that could be 
used for high-quality internet services. According to a 2012 report by 
the Obama administration, the Federal Government is sitting on upwards 
of 60 percent of the best radio spectrum, so-called ``beachfront'' 
spectrum, which could be put to use for commercial internet services 
like 5G wireless broadband.
  Meanwhile, excessive permitting, licensing, and environmental impact 
regulations delayed broadband deployment over Federal and public lands, 
especially in the West.
  Finally, the Office of Management and Budget found that private 
parties spend nearly $800 million each year to comply with FCC 
paperwork requirements. The bill for this ends up being paid entirely 
by ordinary American families.
  Thankfully, my colleagues in the Senate have already identified many 
of these problems and have done work to address them. Senators 
Klobuchar and Daines have spent considerable time on policies to 
streamline broadband internet deployment through their ``dig-once'' 
proposals. Senator Heller is a champion for reducing barriers for 
deploying broadband throughout the West. Senators Thune and Nelson, the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
have introduced measures in the past to free up radio spectrum held by 
Federal agencies and organizations.
  These are just a few of the many thoughtful ideas to reduce barriers 
to entry and increase competition, which has the potential to improve 
quality and bring down prices. The bipartisan nature of these policies 
demonstrates a clear understanding that improvements can be made, and 
everyone should be able to agree that more competition is better for 
American consumers, especially those in rural or low-income housing.
  Everyone should also be able to agree that consumers should be 
protected from unfair and deceptive business practices. Thankfully, the 
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission already enforce 
fair rules that protect Americans' enjoyment of a free and open 
internet.
  The combination of competition and strong enforcement of antitrust 
and consumer protections provides the benefits of an innovative 
marketplace while avoiding problems that come from tired, anti-
consumer, outdated regulations like title II and like the 2015 open 
internet order.
  For the sake of American consumers and innovators--not for entrenched 
business interests--I hope to work with partners in the House, Senate, 
and the FCC to promote competition in the technology sector, including 
among internet service providers. If that means underperforming 
companies have to work a little harder for their customers, that is all 
the better, because the end result of lively competition is more 
investment and innovation by businesses, which translates into more 
choices and better service for consumers.
  I encourage my colleagues, regardless of party or ideology, to work 
with me on this project. If they are truly interested in a better 
internet--not just government intrusion and control for its own sake--I 
am sure they can help me identify other barriers to entry to the 
information superhighway.
  For now, a good start to ensure that American consumers and small 
businesses benefit from the internet is to repeal the FCC's 2015 
internet takeover, enforce antitrust, unfair, and deceptive practice 
standards, and encourage competition among internet firms. Only then 
can we guarantee an internet that is free and open for everyone.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Bonnie Seaman

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to commend Bonnie Seaman, who 
has loyally served the people of Pennsylvania for more than 40 years, 
more recently as the director of constituent services for my Senate 
office. Bonnie has not only been a trusted member of my staff but a 
very close family friend.
  Bonnie was born and raised on a turkey farm in Leck Kill, PA. She is 
the youngest of four children. She first began her public service 
career in county government at what was then known as the 
Northumberland County Mental Health and Mental Retardation Department, 
where she touched the lives of people in her community.
  In pursuit of a college degree, Bonnie attended Indiana University of 
Pennsylvania and graduated cum laude with a degree in education. After 
graduation, she worked as a special education teacher.
  Bonnie's passion for helping others steered her career to the 
Pennsylvania State Senate. While working in the Pennsylvania Senate, 
she was asked by her supervisor if she was interested in working on my 
father's transition team after he was elected Governor of Pennsylvania 
in 1986. This transition job offer was supposed to be temporary, but 
Bonnie would spend the next 30 years working in State government for 
both then-Governor Casey and then me, when I got to State government 
years later.
  She worked as the Governor's executive assistant for 8 years, and of 
course she wore many hats, managing the Governor's staff, scheduling 
events, and resolving constituent issues, but her most important role 
was providing support to the Governor. Her dedication and loyalty 
earned her the respect of her fellow employees in the Governor's office 
as well as those she worked with outside of the office.

[[Page 8223]]

  After working in Governor Casey's administration, Bonnie worked as 
well with my father on his autobiography entitled ``Fighting for 
Life.'' In his book he pays tribute to her as follows:

       I could never have made it through this project without my 
     executive assistant, Bonnie Seaman. It's hard to think of any 
     work I have done these past ten years without Bonnie. Another 
     theme of this book is loyalty, and few people have taught me 
     more about the trait than Bonnie. I am deeply indebted to her 
     for the skill and good spirit she brings to our work right up 
     to this day.

  That was written more than 20 years ago--just about 22 years ago. Of 
course, I can say the same thing about Bonnie's work in the U.S. 
Senate. In 1996, when I was elected the State's auditor general, Bonnie 
was vital to, first, my transition team. Then she served as the 
director of the Office of the Auditor General for 8 years, where she 
oversaw day-to-day operations of my schedule and the management of 
staff. When I was elected State treasurer in 2004, Bonnie began work 
with the Treasury Department. Then, finally, when I was elected in 2006 
to the Senate, I asked Bonnie to serve as director of constituent 
services. I knew that her dedication to public service and compassion 
for others would make her an excellent director. She led the office of 
constituent services for 10 years with distinction. With her gold 
standard professionalism, and unimpeachable ethics, she was a mentor to 
her staff and served as a shining example of quality public service. 
Through her work, Bonnie has touched the lives of over 60,000 
Pennsylvania constituents.
  On behalf of my family, as well as thousands of families across our 
Commonwealth, I express our gratitude to Bonnie Seaman for more than 
three decades of stellar public service. The building we worked in, in 
Harrisburg, has this inscription on the front of it, the finance 
building: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted 
in honor.'' Bonnie accepted the trust that was placed in her. She kept 
faith with taxpayers and brought honor to her work. I wish Bonnie well 
in her retirement as she travels with her husband Tom, attends yoga 
classes, and enjoys time with her family and friends.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cotton pertaining to the introduction of S. 1202 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________