Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator for yielding, and I thank the Senator from Ohio for talking about this very important issue.

Fentanyl is a killer that is descending upon every single community in the United States. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times more powerful than morphine. Fentanyl is the Godzilla of opioids.

Senator Brown represents Ohio; I represent Massachusetts. The fentanyl epidemic has a bull's-eye on Ohio and a bull's-eye on Massachusetts. The deaths from fentanyl are skyrocketing. In 2016, upwards of 70 to 75 percent of all of the opioid deaths in Massachusetts were because of fentanyl. Fentanyl was found in the blood system of those people who died. Last year, 2,000 people in Massachusetts died of overdoses. Three-quarters of them had fentanyl. If the epidemic had been hitting the rest of the country at the same rate that it has been hitting Massachusetts, last year 75,000 people would have died with fentanyl in their blood systems.

Last night, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released shocking new numbers on drug overdose deaths in the United States. These numbers show the spike in deaths caused by fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.

Here are the new numbers nationwide. More than 42,000 Americans died from an opioid overdose last year. That is a 27-percent increase over the number of Americans who died from an opioid overdose in 2015. It went up 27 percent from 2015 to 2016. Of the 42,000 lives lost to opioids last year, nearly half of them nationwide--just over

19,000--can be directly attributed to fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. The number is a much higher percentage in Massachusetts.

Fentanyl is overrunning our communities, laying waste to them. There is no easy solution, but we know that we must staunch the flow of this drug before we lose an entire generation to this terrible killer. That is why I introduced legislation with Senator Brown and Senator Rubio to help those on the frontlines stop this deadly drug from ever getting into our communities. The bill is called the INTERDICT Act. It provides badly needed high-tech equipment and other scientific resources to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to catch illicit fentanyl being trafficked into the United States, mainly from China and Mexico.

When U.S. Customs and Border Protection detects a suspicious package or substance, it has had very good success identifying an illicit drug like fentanyl with the help of high-tech, hand-held chemical screening devices. Using these devices, Customs and Border Protection agents can detect, identify, and seize illicit drugs like fentanyl on the spot. Those rapid results provide vital information for border agents to continue their investigation and, if appropriate, proceed with seizure and arrest.

What is more, these devices and their ability to immediately identify fentanyl and other hazardous illicit substances also serve to safeguard the health and well-being of Customs and Border Protection agents so they are not accidentally exposed to fentanyl. That is what these devices help to make possible.

So we introduced the INTERDICT Act with Sherrod Brown of Ohio; Senator Capito, the Presiding Officer in the Senate today; Senator Rubio; and we have added another 16 Senators from both sides of the aisle.

Madam President, I would be glad to yield.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding.

Can I just list the names of the organizations that support this bill so the police can interdict, stop the fentanyl from coming into our country?

It is the National Fraternal Order of Police, it is the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, it is the National Border Control Council, it is the Police Assisted Recovery Initiative, it is the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Tactical Officers Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the American Legion, the International Union of Police Associations, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs of America, and the Massachusetts Coalition of Police. So it is pretty much every single law enforcement agency at all levels in the country saying: Please give us this tool now so we can detect this incredible killer in our country.

Three former Commissioners of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, appointed by both Democratic and Republican Presidents, support the INTERDICT Act. President Trump's nominee to head the agency, Kevin McAleenan, testified that he supports getting more of these high-tech scanners into the hands of Customs and Border Patrol.

Despite working for months with Senate leadership to try and secure authorization for funding, we just can't seem to get this over the finish line so that in the new year they have these devices. The way it works is, you just put the device up next to a package, and it will tell you if it has got fentanyl or not. Right now, many law enforcement agencies will not even allow one of their police dogs to sniff for fentanyl because it will kill the police dog. That is how dangerous fentanyl is, and that is why these electronic devices are so important. It ensures that we have minimized the exposure of our officers to these substances and, at the same time, dramatically increase the likelihood that we are going to identify the fentanyl in a package and, as a result, deter these people from China or from Mexico who bring it into our country and are killing us by the thousands.

At 42,000 deaths last year, it is now approximating the total number of deaths in the war in Vietnam throughout its entire history. That is just 1 year, 42,000 people--1 year. That is a terrorist attack of a magnitude on our own streets that is unimaginable.

With these devices, we don't completely solve the problem, but we put more weapons in the hands of our law enforcement officials, detection devices that can minimize the likelihood that these terrible people from China, from Mexico, principally, can bring this stuff into our country.

So this is a huge issue. It goes right to the heart of the seriousness of dealing with this issue. My only hope is, we have an ability to be able to move this thing forward in a way that lets the American people say: We understand the issues you want us to work on, and the opioid crisis is at the top of the list. It is indiscriminate. It affects potentially every family. No one is immune to addiction. No family is immune from addiction. It could hit any family at any time, and fentanyl is the ultimate killer.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the great Senator from Washington State for her leadership on this incredibly important issue.

If this tax bill weren't terrible enough, it goes after one of the most beautiful places on Earth, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is nothing more than a Big Oil polar payout. This isn't about drilling oil; it is about drilling for votes. This isn't about crude oil; it is the crudest of politics.

We now have 41 cosponsors of my legislation with Senator Bennet to permanently protect the Arctic Refuge by designating it as a wilderness. That is enough to sustain a filibuster, and that is precisely why they are circumventing the normal legislative process by including it as a rider on a tax bill.

In reality, drilling turns this pristine wilderness into an industrialized wasteland. The Coastal Plain is the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge, and allowing oil and gas drilling would drive a stake right through the heart of it.

We are currently sending nearly 1 million barrels a day of American crude oil overseas, but Republicans and the their oil industry allies are saying we need to allow drilling in the wildest place left in America so we can export even more oil to China and other foreign nations. It is an abomination. It is a disgrace. Drilling in a wilderness area in order to send oil to China--it is a disgrace. If the Republicans persist in passing this monstrosity of a tax bill and pass this Big Oil polar payout, they are the ones who are going to be left out in the cold in 2018.

If the Republicans want to see what real wilderness looks like, they don't need to travel to the Arctic Refuge, the wilderness is about to come to them. They are about to be sent deep into the political wilderness if they pass this tax scam legislation.

If the Republicans are successful in ramming through the Arctic drilling rider in the dead of night, we will never give up. We will keep fighting because the Arctic Refuge should forever be the home for caribou, not crude; bears, not barrels of oil; sandpipers, not pipelines. We will never stop fighting.

They may win tonight in the dark of night, but this fight is not over. This is a crime against the environment which is being committed here tonight. We do not have to sacrifice this wilderness. We are exporting oil out of our country--exporting it. We don't have to go here. Export more oil, and that is where it is going? It is just wrong.

Just remember that this is all a part of the so-called Republican reconciliation process. Now that we have the final product, that process is being exposed as the giant con game it truly is. The key phrase in reconciliation is ``con.'' It is a con job. The whole thing is nothing more than a masquerade, a Trojan horse in order to get a tax cut for the upper first percentile. It is a con job.

The polling in our country says the American people are not buying it. They are seeing right through it--through all the political noise, all of the incredible distractions, all the red herrings. The American public knows this is a tax break for the wealthiest people in our country and not for the middle class. Republicans are not even trying to hide what they are doing anymore. They are moving ahead with reckless speed to pass this disaster of a bill in the middle of the night, so that is why we will all be back here in a few hours, yet again, voting in the dead of night on a 500-page bill that has no hearings, no amendments, no real debate because that is the only way you can get a tax break for the upper first percentile and the wealthiest corporations in the country while trying to market it as a tax break for the middle class, when they know it is not. They know it, by the way. They know what they are doing.

It is the height of irony that we will be here tonight ramming through legislation before the Senator-elect from the State of Alabama can be seated. Just 8 years ago, Republicans called on Democrats to stop progress on the Affordable Care Act until Senator Scott Brown was sworn in. They said at the time: Stop progress. Don't do anything. We need to wait for Scott Brown to show up. Back then, Democrats listened to those calls, but when Doug Jones gets elected, it is just put your foot to the accelerator, move as fast as you can, no hearings, no anything, and Alabama will not be represented with their new Senator out here. Back then, Democrats actually listened to those calls, and today our concerns are completely ignored by the Republicans, all so they can continue playing their con game on the American people.

The American people are waking up to the fact that they have been sold a bill of goods. They are seeing that this plan is simply a Trojan horse of giveaways to the wealthy corporations and Republican political donors.

What are some of those giveaways? Front and center is the massive cut in tax rates for megacorporations. We know this will not create jobs or trickle down to their employees because we have tried it before. In 2004, we gave a massive tax holiday for huge corporations on the money they held overseas, but the 15 companies that benefited the most from those giveaways cut more than 20,000 jobs and decreased their research spending.

Mark Twain said: ``History doesn't repeat itself, but it does tend to rhyme.'' This tends to rhyme. The tax cuts in this bill are even more egregious. Corporate tax cuts flow to CEOs and stockholders. Those stockholders are not all American taxpayers. Foreigners hold 35 percent of U.S. corporate stock. That means the Republican tax bill is a giveaway of $48 billion to foreigners in 2019 alone.

Think about this. The Republicans can find $48 billion to give away to foreign shareholders but in the same bill raise taxes on millions of middle-class

families. By 2027, this bill will raise taxes on over 53 percent of American households. At the same time, a full 83 percent of the tax cuts will flow to the top 1 percent of Americans. So the more the American people see what is in this bill, the more they realize they will have to foot the bill, and the American people are saying ``No way.''

New polls today show that over half of the American public opposes this bill; two-thirds of the people recognize that the bill will benefit the wealthy over the middle class; and, according to the polls, the only thing more unpopular than this tax plan is President Trump himself. But the Republicans will push ahead anyway since this is all part of the bigger con game. When these tax giveaways pass, the deficit will explode by over $2 trillion.

Republicans aren't even waiting for those deficits to become reality before using them as an excuse to move to the next phase of the con game. They are already using future deficits to justify a brutal, vicious cut to programs for the poorest, for the sickest, for the neediest people in our country. Earlier this month, Speaker Ryan said, ``We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.'' We know exactly what Republicans mean when they talk about entitlement reform. They mean taking a machete to the programs that working and middle-class families in America rely upon. Republicans want nothing more than an excuse to slash Medicare and make it harder for Grandma to buy her medicine. They want the ability to gut Medicaid because, in their opinion, healthcare is only a right for the wealthy. They want to cover their historical enmity toward Social Security so that they can steal benefits from every American who has paid into that system, and they are doing this because the modern Republican Party has a sacred obligation to their donors--to the Koch brothers, to the massive corporations that help fund their campaigns. They promised them tax breaks, and it will be average working families who will end up footing the bill. When the bill becomes due, the American people will not forget who sent it to them.

Here we are at the end of the year. We have truly important issues to address. We need to fund healthcare for 9 million children, ensure that community health centers can keep the lights on, secure the dreams of 800,000 young Dreamers, and combat the crises that American communities face from opioids and natural disasters. Sadly, we are doing none of those things. Instead, we are looting America's middle class to give away massive amounts of money to the rich, which will then create deficits, which will then have them going after Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--Grandma and Grandpa, who built this country. That has always been their plan. They have an ancient animosity toward all of these programs, and now they believe they can leave them as debt-soaked relics of what they are today by creating this huge debt in this tax bill and then turning on the very programs for the very people who made this country what it is today.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. It will go down in history as one of the worst single pieces of legislation ever to be considered by the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, today, I wish to recognize Pat Rourke for her 44 years of Federal service at the Boston Passport Agency. After serving in nearly every department within the agency, Pat will retire at the close of this year from her post as customer service manager.

Pat's expertise combined with her eagerness to assist the people of Massachusetts has been an invaluable resource to me and my staff. Throughout her esteemed career, she issued countless passports. Pat made the difference to families eager to explore the world and to those with an emergency need to travel. Working in customer service is not always an easy task, but Pat is widely known for her compassion, patience, and good humor. She has fostered an environment at the Boston Passport Agency where customers and employees feel welcome and supported. Pat has always provided my office with sound advice to ensure that we best meet the needs of our traveling constituents. While she will be sorely missed, she will leave a lasting legacy at the Boston Passport Agency, and she will be fondly remembered by all those she has helped and mentored throughout her career.

My staff and I would like to extend our sincere gratitude to Pat for her years of dedicated service and wish her well as she embarks on this next chapter in her life. Congratulations, Pat, and thank you for the enormous contributions you have made to the community, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the United States of America.

Madam President, I thank all of my colleagues, led by Senator Cantwell, for joining me on the floor this afternoon.

We are speaking on behalf of millions of our constituents and of the tens of millions of Americans who support a free and open internet. I am proud to come to the floor to discuss an issue of national importance to both our economy and our democracy--net neutrality.

Now, a lot of people have recently stopped and asked me: What exactly is net neutrality?

The technical answer is that network neutrality, or net neutrality, is the principle that internet service providers--you know their names: Verizon, AT&T, Charter, Comcast--cannot discriminate against content providers, against websites. They are the people to whom you pay by check each month and who make sure that you have broadband service. You know who they are. The simpler explanation is this: No one owns the internet. Everyone can use the internet. Anyone can improve the internet.

Yet that will not be the case if the Trump administration and Ajit Pai, the Chairman, and Republicans have their way. They want to get rid of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules so that the ISPs, the internet service providers, can indiscriminately charge more for internet fast lanes, slow down websites, block websites, make it harder--and, maybe, even impossible--for inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses--the lifeblood of the American economy--to connect to the internet.

That is why we are here this afternoon on the floor, and it is why supporters of a free and open internet are vigorously opposed to this politically craven attempt to weaken the principle of net neutrality that has allowed the internet to flourish.

Tomorrow the Federal Communications Commission is voting on a proposal that will cut at the very heart of a free and open internet. They are voting to roll back net neutrality protections and send a love letter to the big broadband companies that stand to make huge profits without these rules.

So what are Chairman Pai and his broadband buddies really trying to do?

The first thing they will do is to gut the rule against blocking. What does that mean? It means that an internet service provider could block any website it wants. That includes a website of a competing service or a website with a contrary political view--whatever they want.

Second, Chairman Pai would gut the rule against throttling. What does that mean? It means that the internet service provider could slow down any website it wants.

Third, Chairman Pai would gut the rule that bans paid prioritization. What does that mean? It means that the internet service provider could charge websites for an internet fast lane, meaning that those websites could load more quickly, while the websites that could not afford the internet's ``E-ZPass'' would be stuck on a gravel path and take more time to load, frustrating consumers with long buffering times.

Fourth, Chairman Pai would gut the forward-looking general conduct rule. What does that mean? The general conduct rule protects consumers from harms such as data caps and other discriminatory behavior that ISPs will think of in the coming months or years ahead.

Fifth, Chairman Pai would create an unregulated interconnection market. What does that mean? It means that the Federal Communications Commission would lose authority to oversee places at which ISPs connect to the internet and extract fees.

Finally, Chairman Pai wants to prevent States and localities from adopting their own net neutrality protections.

What will be the replacement for these enforceable net neutrality rules today? What will replace them? Absolutely nothing. Chairman Pai will leave it to the internet service providers to, simply, regulate themselves in this unpoliced internet ``Wild West.''

Chairman Pai claims that the Federal Trade Commission--not the Federal Communications Commission, which is the Commission of expertise over telecommunications--somehow provides a sufficient backstop to bad behavior by the ISPs, but that is simply not true.

Under the Federal Trade Commission, the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies. That is like letting the bullies develop their own playground rules. If the ISP wants to block websites, slow down competitors' websites, and charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their customers, they will be free to do so. That is because the Federal Trade Commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its own net neutrality policies--that is, the policy created by the broadband company itself. Yet, if an internet service provider has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes, there is nothing the Federal Trade Commission can do about it.

That is ridiculous, and it is wrong. Allowing the broadband industry to set its own net neutrality protections is like letting the fox guard the henhouse.

OK, so the Federal Trade Commission oversight will not work. Chairman Pai claims that he has another solution. It is called transparency. He argues that, if ISPs are transparent about their net neutrality practices, consumers and businesses can simply choose to use a broadband provider with the net neutrality practices that best suit them. But what good is transparency when most Americans have little or no choice for high-speed broadband access?

Consider this that 62 percent of Americans have only one choice for high-speed, fixed broadband. That is right. Nearly two-thirds of the country have only one choice from whom they can purchase broadband. That means, if a household's only choice for high-speed broadband is not transparent about its plans to set up internet fast and slow lanes, the consumer has two choices--one, to accept the internet service provider's terms or, two, to live without the internet. That is a false choice. People do not want to live without the internet in the 21st century.

Chairman Pai claims that internet service providers actually support net neutrality but just not the open internet order under which we are living today. That is like saying that you support democracy but not the Constitution. It is like saying that you like math but you hate numbers. It makes no sense.

The broadband barons have been fighting for years, both at the Federal Communications Commission and in the courts, to block net neutrality rules. It is crystal clear, and it has been for years. The broadband companies are deeply opposed to net neutrality because they want to drive up their profits by setting up internet fast and slow lanes and charge consumers more for less. It is a simple formula.

Chairman Pai also claims that broadband investment has been discouraged by the open internet order. That is false. Investment in our broadband infrastructure is stronger than ever, and with the deployment of 5G technologies on the horizon, we can expect this strong investment to continue. Broadband investment in the aggregate has increased in the 2 years since the FCC passed the open internet order. Beyond just measuring dollars spent, broadband speeds also increased after the 2015 order, meaning the ISPs have been improving the services they offer to their consumers. Consider this: In 2016 almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That is $25 billion worth of investments.

We have hit the sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless technologies is high, job creation is high, and venture capital investment in online startups is high. Chairman Pai threatens to disrupt this appropriate balance and squash innovation online. It is clear that Americans do not want what the FCC is proposing. It seems as though the only supporter of this plan is the broadband industry.

If Chairman Pai and his Republican colleagues turn a deaf ear to millions of Americans standing up to net neutrality and approve their plan tomorrow, we will continue this fight elsewhere. When the Obama- era rules were challenged by the internet service providers in 2015, I led a congressional amicus brief with Congresswoman Eshoo in support of the rules. Congresswoman Eshoo and I plan to do it again this time and lead an amicus brief in defense of net neutrality. I also intend to file a Congressional Review Act, or CRA, resolution of disapproval with a number of my colleagues so that the U.S. Senate can vote to undo Chairman Pai's proposal and restore the 2015 open internet order.

The Trump administration is waging an all-out assault on our core protections: DACA, the Affordable Care Act, the Paris climate accord, and the Clean Power Plan. Now Trump's Federal Communications Commission has put net neutrality in its sights.

For all of those who rely upon the free and open internet, whether it is for commerce, education, healthcare or entertainment, I urge you to join me in this fight to create a firestorm of opposition to this assault on net neutrality. This is a fundamental attack on the openness of the internet that must be beaten, and we must now form an army of ordinary Americans as the voices that will fight the special interests and lobbyists in this city who want to shut down net neutrality forever.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Margie Alt belongs on the Mount Rushmore of environmental advocates. For more than three decades, first at U.S. PRIG and then Environment America, Margie has been one of the leading generals in this monumental fight to combat climate change and protect our environment.

It was Margie's vision that transformed U.S. PIRG and Environment America into the powerhouse environmental advocacy organization it is today, with more than 1 million members across the country. Because of her leadership, EA doesn't just stand for Environment America, it also stands for everywhere in America, because that is where she planted the seeds of grassroots change and political activation.

As a tireless consumer protection champion, she has ensured that America's air and water is clean, our beaches and waterways are protected, and the public is safeguarded from toxic threats. She led groundbreaking work to organize the majority of State Renewable Electricity Standards in America, laying the foundation for the clean energy revolution that is now unstoppable. Her voice, passion, and strategic brilliance have been indispensable as the environmental movement she helped build takes on climate deniers and corporate polluters.

For her entire career, Margie has stood up for the public's health, stood against the special interests who would despoil our lands, and stood for integrity and progress. She is truly Massachusetts' commitment to public service personified. America has been fortunate to have had Margie Alt's extraordinary leadership for these many years, and I have been fortunate to call her my friend.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for presiding today.

I thank the Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, for organizing all of us this afternoon to speak on behalf of these Dreamers. His leadership has been critical in this fight for the dignity and recognition of hundreds of thousands of wonderful young people who know no other home than the United States of America.

For 5 years, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--or DACA-- Program, has created security and opportunity for young immigrants around the country, but now the futures of some 800,000 young people-- 7,900 of them in Massachusetts--are needlessly in jeopardy because President Trump has coldheartedly repealed DACA.

DACA has been a hugely successful program. It has provided so many young immigrants safety, security, dignity, respect, and opportunity. These are young people who study, who work, who live next-door to us every single day. They are our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones.

I would like to speak for a few minutes about one of these DACA beneficiaries. She is 28-year-old Paola Sanchez, who came to the United States from Bolivia when she was 14 years old. Paola's father passed away when she was just 8 years old. Her mother was in a wheelchair and was unable to work. With her family facing hardship, Paola came to America to live with an aunt and uncle in New York. There, Paola worked in the manufacturing industry while she attended high school full time. She often got home late at night and grabbed a few hours of sleep before getting up to head to school to do it all over again.

In 2007, Paola graduated from high school and moved to my State of Massachusetts, where she has lived ever since. She now works 30 hours a week as a case manager while attending Bay State Community College full time. She has been a model student, earning a 3.9 grade point average, and she hopes to enter nursing school in January.

Paola has been a DACA recipient since 2013, but her current status expires next year. This means that unless Congress acts and saves the program, Paola and thousands like her will have to leave the United States for countries they do not really know and no longer consider to be home.

Paola's case, like many others, is even more difficult because she has a 4-year-old son--a child who is an American citizen by birth and has never known any other home than the United States.

All Paola wants is to stay here with her son, get her nursing degree, get a good job, and give back to the country so much more than she has been given. Instead, Paola and countless other young people and families across the United States face uncertain futures. Instead of going to sleep tonight knowing they will be able to live their lives in peace and plan for the future, they are left with uncertainty, vulnerable to deportation, and unable to work legally. This is a human tragedy in the making. It is heartbreaking, it is unjust, and it is just plain wrong. We should not punish these young people who have no other home than the United States of America. We should not go back on the word we gave when

we told these young people to come out of the shadows.

These Dreamers are engineers, police officers, teachers, future nurses, and students, many in our great Massachusetts colleges and universities. They serve bravely in our military. They are our best and brightest and are making the most of the opportunities that the United States has always provided to immigrant communities.

The ball is in the court of the Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Speaker Paul Ryan and Leader Mitch McConnell can listen to a growing chorus of their own colleagues and to business CEOs, including those at Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, General Motors, and to academic leaders, countless college and university presidents, all of whom support DACA--or they can side with the forces of intolerance and injustice.

Congress should pass the Dream Act so that people, like Paola, who were brought here at a young age and who have served in the military or pursued higher education can earn citizenship.

I urge everyone to listen to Dick Durbin, to listen to this chorus of voices from around our country. Protect these 800,000 young people. Protect them because they deserve it, and America will be the beneficiary of these great Americans who are serving our country right now.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion of the Senator from Maine. He is sitting right at the heart of this issue, and that is that this is nothing more than a con game by the Republicans to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people and the wealthiest corporations in America and then, ultimately, to wind up with a huge addition to the Federal deficit.

I thought I would take this time just to explain to the American public what this whole concept of a reconciliation process is. It sounds like a very fancy word, ``reconciliation.'' What does it mean, though, in the legislative context?

You have to take it for what it is, and the key part of the words ``reconciliation plan,'' when we are dealing with the Republicans, is the word ``con'' because the whole thing is a con job that they are trying to pull on the American people.

Step No. 1 is for them to argue that they are going to give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations and the wealthiest individuals in America. The vast, overwhelming percentage of it goes to them. Pennies on the dollar go to average working families as tax breaks.

Then they begin to argue that there is going to be a huge increase in economic growth in the United States, although they made the same argument in 1981 with the Reagan tax breaks, and it turned out it exploded the deficits. Then they made the same argument with the Bush tax breaks, and it exploded the Federal deficit. The economic growth, which they said was going to happen, never happened. Now they are just bringing it all back again--deja vu all over again--hoping that everyone will just buy the same, exact, now-debunked economic argument for the third time in our history.

So the key is, first, we provide the tax giveaways to the wealthiest--the wealthy corporations. That then results in exploding deficits. Then they say: Well, there may be some additions to it, but that is just a side impact. That is where they are extremely deceptive because, in fact, that is a feature of their tax breaks. A feature of their tax breaks is to create exploding deficits. How do we know that? Well, because the Republicans have already called for, in their budget, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. They have already called for a $450 billion cut in Medicare. They have already called for a $1 trillion cut in Medicaid.

The beauty of the Republican plan, to give all of these huge tax breaks to the wealthiest in America, is that it creates such a huge deficit that their elephant symbol is shedding crocodile tears about how big the deficit is going to become. Of course, that will be next year, when they are shocked at how needed it is to cut Medicare and Medicaid. But they have already given us the preview of coming attractions by putting it in their budget this year. This reconciliation game, this con job, tries to separate the tax breaks for the wealthiest from their brutal, vicious cuts to programs for the poorest, the sickest, the elderly, the neediest in our country. That is the game. That is the con game, the reconciliation game that they are playing with the American public. By trying to divide this story line, they seek to have it sneak through without any full understanding of the ramifications for the American people or the implications for their families.

Make no mistake about it, as they give the tax giveaways to the wealthiest, that will result in exploding deficits, which will result in the Republicans, once again, really caring about deficits. I will tell you an amazing thing about the Republican Party. They care passionately, deeply, about deficits when the Democrats are in

charge. But when they are in charge, oh no, oh no. Do they care about deficits? Somehow they can turn a blind eye to their own actions, which lead to exploding deficits. There it is, ladies and gentlemen, the tribute that hypocrisy has to pay for virtue.

They have to say the right things about investment. They have to say that this will not lead to exploding additional debt for our country. But every single economic analysis of this bill, going back to the 1981 tax breaks, shows it is all the same play--a Trojan horse to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. That is what David Stockman actually said in 1985, in his famous book, ``The Triumph of Politics.'' When he looked back at the 1981 huge tax break for corporations and the wealthy, he said that actually the whole thing was a Trojan horse to get tax breaks for the upper 1 percentile. He was honest about it.

He also said another thing. He also said that ultimately the Republicans didn't have the nerve then to cut their own special projects or to stop advocating for massive increases in defense spending, which runs totally contrary to their ostensible goal of reducing the debt. So we are going to hear that. We are going to hear that. We are going to hear a request from Republicans for a massive increase in defense spending, along with their massive cuts in taxes, as though somehow or other they can get a balanced budget out of that.

You don't have to be an accountant or an expert on budgetary matters to figure out that does not add up--unless, ladies and gentlemen, they are going to cut Medicare, unless they are going to cut Medicaid, unless they are coming back for it again. If you kick them in the heart, you are going to break your toe.

That is what this is all about--giving away trillions of dollars to the wealthiest to create pressure on the programs for the poorest, for the sickest, for those most in need in nursing homes in our country. That is what it is all about, and, to boot, in order to get votes for their bill, they then say to their own Members: We are going to allow the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--this pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--for oil, even as just 2 years ago they had advocated for lifting the ban on the exportation of oil from our country that had been on the books for 40 years and even as we still import 3 million barrels of oil a day from OPEC. We are now exporting 1 million barrels of oil a day from our country. Where are they going to get it so they can send it out of the country to China? They are going to go to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, this pristine place.

So here is where the oil companies are right now. They are going to get huge tax breaks out of this bill. And in order to get even more votes on their side, they are going to allow for drilling in a pristine Arctic wildlife refuge.

In both cases, what is happening is that the next generation of Americans, regular Americans, is the one that is getting shortchanged. A despoliation of our environment, tax breaks that put inextricable, inevitable pressure on the social programs that go right to the heart of the safety net to protect ordinary family in our country--it is a con game, ladies and gentleman. It is a reconciliation con game that they are trying to play out here, and they do it time after time to kind of hide their real agenda.

All I can say is that what the Senator from Maine is proposing is for there to be just a little bit of honesty in terms of what the real agenda is here, and what his motion calls for is for the Finance Committee to ensure that there is no increase in the deficit in the bill we are going to vote on on the floor. But that will never pass because the Republicans have a con game going. All of a sudden, they don't care about deficits anymore. They don't care about debt. They don't care about the pressure that is going to be put on ordinary families. Who will be paying back this debt? Well, disproportionately, it is going to be the regular families in the country. They will be paying back that debt for the rest of their lives, and the debt is caused by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. And to boot, it will then be the programs for those ordinary families that get slashed in order to pay for it because that is what is coming out here on the floor of the Senate in the very near future, this not-so-secret plan to actually fulfill their promise to the donor class of the Republican Party. They have a sacred duty that they have pledged to their donor class to get them these tax breaks and to do so at the expense of Medicare and Medicaid. That is the simple deal here. That is the con job they are trying to perpetrate upon the American people.

That is why this vote is one of the most important votes in the history of the United States of America. There are no votes that are bigger than this. It goes right to the shape of capitalism. They are seeking to reshape capitalism as we know it--who gets the incentives to be productive in our society and who then has to pay for those incentives that are being created.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this momentous, historic moment is something that I hope every American reflects upon as we head into next year because the next stage is their all-out assault on Medicare and Medicaid and probably Social Security as well, if they are ever going to fulfill their commitment to their Republican base.

I thank the Senator from Maine for making this motion. I think it goes right to the heart of the debate that we need to have in this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, last year, Chairman Pai, of the Federal Communications Commission, threatened to take a weed whacker to the FCC's net neutrality rules. On December 14, Chairman Pai and the FCC are likely to make good on that promise. Last week, they issued their plan. They are quite proud of it. Chairman Pai is very proud of their plan. They got that done last week. Then, on December 14, they are going to execute their plan to execute the net neutrality rules of our country.

Net neutrality applies the principles of nondiscrimination to the internet world, ensuring that broadband providers--America's internet gatekeepers--do not block, slow down, or prioritize internet traffic. In 2015, the FCC correctly adopted the open internet order, enshrining these net neutrality principles into law, but now net neutrality and the free and open internet--this diverse, dynamic, democratic platform--are under attack.

Here is what Chairman Pai is proposing. No. 1, he would gut the rule against blocking. What does that mean? It means an internet service provider could block any website it wants. It could block something just because it decided to. That includes a website of a competing service or a website with a contrary political view. Whatever they want, they can block. The biggest companies--Comcast, AT&T--they can just block it.

No. 2, Chairman Pai would gut the rule against throttling. What does that mean? That means the internet service provider could slow down any website it wants.

No. 3, Chairman Pai would gut the rule banning paid prioritization. What does that mean in easy-to-understand language? That means the internet service provider could charge websites for an internet fast lane--meaning those websites would load quicker, while websites that can't afford the internet ``EZ pass'' would be stuck on a gravel path, taking more time to load and frustrating consumers with long buffering times.

No. 4, Chairman Pai would gut the forward-looking general conduct rule. What does that mean in easy-to-understand language? That means whatever discriminatory conduct ISPs think of next in the coming months or years would be perfectly legal.

No. 5, Chairman Pai would create an unregulated interconnection market. What does that mean, an unregulated interconnected market? In plain English, it means the Federal Communications Commission would lose authority to oversee places where the internet service providers connect to the internet and extract fees.

No. 6, Chairman Pai would prevent States and localities from adopting their own net neutrality protections. If you live in Massachusetts or you live in California or you live in Alabama,

your State can't give you any protections. They can't say: Here's how we want the internet to be operating.

What will replace these enforceable net neutrality rules? Nothing. Chairman Pai will leave it to the internet service providers--to the big companies we all subscribe to--to regulate themselves. We will just put them on the honor system. We know the broadband industry--your cable, your wireless or telecommunications provider--cannot regulate themselves. They struggle to even show up on time to install or fix your service. Do we really trust the broadband industry to resist leveraging their internet gatekeeper role and putting their online competitors at an unfair disadvantage? Of course not.

What is Chairman Pai's silver lining in light of gutting all of these rules? He has proposed to keep some transparency rules, requiring the internet service providers--these broadband behemoths--to disclose their practices to consumers. What good is transparency when most Americans have little or no choice for high-speed broadband access? After all, 62 percent of Americans have one choice for high-speed fixed broadband. If a household's only choice for high-speed broadband is transparent about its plans to set up internet fast and slow lanes, the consumer has two choices: accept the internet provider's terms or live without the internet. That is not a real choice at all. People are not going to be living without the internet in the 21st century. You are going to pay whatever that company tells you, you are going to pay.

It is clear that most Americans do not want what the FCC is proposing. A record number of people--over 22 million--made their voices heard at the FCC. Americans know the internet--the world's greatest platform for commerce and communications--is at stake. Consider that, today, essentially every company is an internet company. In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That is $25 billion of investment. To meet America's insatiable demand for broadband internet, U.S. broadband and telecommunications industry companies invested more than $87 billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is the highest rate of annual investment in the last 10 years.

We have hit the sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless technologies is high. Job creation is high. Venture capital investment in online startups is high. With these net neutrality protections in place, there is no problem that needs fixing, but under Chairman Pai's plan, broadband providers get exactly what they want--an unregulated Wild West where they can set up internet fast and slow lanes.

Chairman Pai proposes to have the FCC completely abdicate its rightful role to oversee telecommunications networks under title II of the Communications Act. Chairman Pai claims that the FTC--the Federal Trade Commission--provides a sufficient backstop to discriminatory behavior by the big broadband companies. That is simply not true.

Under the Federal Trade Commission regime, the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies, and if the internet service provider wants to block websites, slow down the competitors' content, or charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their customers, they will be free to do so. That is because the Federal Trade Commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its own net neutrality policies, but what if the internet service provider has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes? There is nothing the Federal Trade Commission can do about it because the broadband baron told you what they are going to do. They were transparent about what they were going to do, but you just have no recourse whatsoever going to the Federal Trade Commission. It is a false promise of protection that Chairman Pai is presenting.

The only way to protect a free and open internet is with strong net neutrality rules of the road, not voluntary guidelines. Chairman Pai's proposal would put the future of a free and open internet in the hands of big corporations and the powerful few at the expense of ordinary consumers all across our country. Our consumers will be tipped upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets because they will not have the protection of net neutrality provisions that are now the law but are soon to be wiped off of the law.

The Trump administration is waging an all-out assault on our core protections: the Affordable Care Act, the Paris climate accord, the Clean Power Plan. Now Trump's Federal Communications Commission has net neutrality in their sights. For all of those who rely on the free and open internet--whether it is for commerce, education, healthcare, entertainment--I urge you all to rise up and create a firestorm of opposition to this assault on net neutrality. This goes to the fundamental principles of nondiscrimination online. This is the greatest engine for commercial job development our country has ever seen. It is the engine for new companies to be started. It is the way in which young people are able to disrupt established companies, to take new concepts that create jobs but also benefit consumers across our country. That is the opportunity this represents, and it is also a powerful force for democracy, for everyone's voice being heard equally. That is what net neutrality is about. That is what the Trump-Chairman Pai Federal Communications Commission is about to end, and that is why we must fight. That is why I am so proud to be standing as part of this effort with our great ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Bill Nelson from the State of Florida, because this is a fight worth having.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today we honor an icon of the film industry and a distinguished public servant, George Stevens, Jr. For five decades, George Stevens, Jr., served as the founding director of the American Film Institute, AFI, an organization that led the clarion call to preserve and celebrate America's film heritage.

In honoring him, I would like to state the following in the Record:

Whereas, George Stevens, Jr., stood in the Rose Garden of

the White House in 1967 when President Lyndon Johnson

announced there would be an American Film Institute in order

to address the crisis of America's disappearing motion

picture heritage.

Whereas, through the extraordinary vision of the Library of

Congress and the American Film Institute, more than 37,000

motion pictures are now safely preserved in the AFI

Collection at the Library of Congress.

Whereas, George Stevens, Jr., led the effort at the AFI to

create a rescue list of movies with the Museum of Modern Art,

Eastman House, and the Library of Congress and locate and

preserve missing films.

Whereas, the collection includes classic American films,

including ``It's A Wonderful Life,'' ``Mr. Smith Goes to

Washington,'' ``The Ten Commandment,'' ``Puss in Boots,'' and

George Stevens, Sr.'s ``Gunga Din.''

Whereas, George Stevens, Jr., expanded the horizons of the

next generation of filmmakers and visionaries with the

creation an AFI Center for Advanced Film Studies.

Whereas, George Stevens, Jr., unleashed the power of

filmmaking in service to the

American people, leading the United States Information Agency

Motion Picture Service and producing award-winning films

about the fabric of American life.

Therefore, today in the U.S. Senate, I honor the 50th

anniversary of the American Film Institute and the

extraordinary legacy of George Stevens, Jr., director,

producer, playwright, and public servant without equal.

Thomas Edison may be given credit for inventing the film

industry, but it is George Stevens, Jr., and the American

Film Institute who have preserved it for future generations

to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this summer the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, turned 20 years old.

I served on the House committee that created this bill and was proud to support providing the affordable comprehensive health insurance to low-income children and pregnant women. It is a bipartisan program, and it is an effective program. Last year alone, CHIP covered nearly 9 million children throughout the country. In Massachusetts, CHIP has been instrumental in achieving near-universal coverage for our children in the Bay State.

Yet, instead of celebrating CHIP's successes over the last two decades, congressional Republicans have placed CHIP in programmatic purgatory. That is because they allowed CHIP to expire at the end of September. Instead of focusing on reauthorizing this critical healthcare lifeline, Republican leadership chose to waste months of time trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They let just one of these successful programs lapse while they tried unsuccessfully to end another. They were more interested in ripping healthcare coverage away from millions of Americans and taking a machete to Medicaid rather than protecting our Nation's children.

We should not forget that CHIP stands on Medicaid's shoulders. Any fundamental changes to how Medicaid operates--whether it is block- granting or capping the program--will hamstring CHIP's ability to serve children as effectively and efficiently as it was intended to do, but instead of immediately returning attention to ensuring that this lapsed deadline is not effective, House Republicans have further delayed action by inserting partisan policies to pay for the program. This has not only caused an unnecessary delay in passing a bill to reauthorize CHIP, but it has dragged CHIP onto the political game board, turning it and our children into pawns in their ruthless game of partisan chess.

CHIP has historically been and should be above such games because CHIP is not just an insurance program, it is a reassurance program. It reassures States that they can provide comprehensive healthcare coverage to some of their most vulnerable, it reassures doctors that their patients will be able to access care and treatment, it reassures teachers that their students can be healthy enough to learn, and it reassures Mom and Dad that their children can still get well in the face of financial hardship.

Continued inaction on CHIP is dangerous and damaging. Every day we delay reauthorizing CHIP is another day parents across the United States live in fear that their children may soon lose their health insurance. They panic at the thought of leaving their child's asthma untreated, skipping a trip to the dentist, or delaying a doctor's visit because they can't afford to pay for the treatment or medication that may be prescribed. If we don't act soon, this fear may become a terrible reality for families. In Massachusetts, CHIP funding will expire early next year. This could impact coverage for 160,000 children in the Commonwealth, potentially delaying access to treatment and services that could have ramifications into adulthood.

In Congress, we are celebrating the 20th birthday of a successful children's insurance program by effectively threatening to end it. That is what Congress is now doing to the State of Massachusetts. That is what they are saying to the State of Massachusetts; that they are going to effectively try to shut down a program that for 20 years has served the children in our State. That makes no sense.

I urge my Republican colleagues to put their partisan games aside to provide certainty and stability to States, to providers, and to reassure families by reauthorizing CHIP. When President Trump says he wants to make the healthcare system in America better, when President Trump says he wants to make sure families are able to take care of their children, we have a program that does that already. It is successful, and families and the States love it. All we need is Republicans in the Senate to work together in order to make sure that program continues for the health of all children in our country.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Tessa Rebholz, a fellow on my staff, for the remainder of the session.

Madam President, I would like to begin by quoting David Stockman. David Stockman was the head of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan administration. He wrote a famous book after his tenure running the Office of Management and Budget. It is called ``The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' Let me read you a quote from David Stockman's book. This is what he says:

The hard part of the supply-side tax cut is dropping the

top rate--the rest of it is a secondary matter. . . . Then,

the general argument was that, in order to make this

palatable as a political matter, you had to bring down all of

the brackets. But, I mean, [the plan] was always a Trojan

horse to bring down the top rate.

I quote from David Stockman in his book ``The Triumph of Politics.'' He wrote about how President Reagan sold massive, deficit-busting tax cuts for the wealthy by making knowingly erroneous arguments, by making faulty economic arguments.

As we stand here on the Senate floor today, debating the Trump budget of 2017, we focus on what Mark Twain once said: History does not repeat itself, but it does tend to rhyme.

This looks very much like what Reagan tried to pull off in the early 1980s, to no avail, and his book is very clear as to why they were unsuccessful. The Reagan-era promises of economic growth and budget surpluses turned out to be massive debt and deficits. There is some kind of nostalgia, political nostalgia, for a Reagan era that never existed and, instead, a painting of a past that just has to be replicated today. Let's look at what David Stockman said he did and why it turned out so unsuccessful for President Reagan. The Republicans are back again with a new budget, but they are using the same old bag of tricks and gimmicks from more than 30 years ago.

This is their plan, which is very simple, and it is identical: No. 1, claim unspecified funding cuts to many domestic programs many, many years in the future; No. 2, assume unrealistic growth from your policies that will magically balance the deficit; and finally, No. 3, use those questionable economic assumptions to provide massive tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations in our country.

The budget we are debating today hits all of these points. It claims to balance the deficit, while in reality it is a blatant attack on the middle class for the benefit of these super rich.

First, let's start with the budgetary trick: unspecified cuts to domestic programs. Back in the 1980s, David Stockman called these ``magic asterisks,'' meaning that the Reagan administration would count the savings from these future cuts, but in reality, they would be someone else's problem to figure out at a later time.

Today, we are dealing with a budget containing more than $1 trillion in completely unspecified and unallocated funding cuts over the next decade--the magic asterisks, programs to be cut but not specified. Please vote for this budget, but do not take any responsibility, my Republican colleagues, for actually telling the American people what programs are going to get cut--the magic asterisks.

Second, we have the same unrealistic economic growth assumptions that Stockman referred to in the 1980s as a rosy scenario. That is what he called it.

Today, we are being told that tax cuts for the wealthy will magically grow the economy to the tune of an additional $1.2 trillion and will somehow pay for themselves. History taught us that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. It was not true under Reagan, and David Stockman, his budgetary expert, tells us this. It was not true under Bush, and it will certainly not be true under Donald Trump as well.

The Republicans forget recent history and continue to use these fairy tale economic assumptions for the same reasons they did in the 1980s. The tax cuts for the wealthy do not look completely irresponsible to the rest of the American people. Can we sell the American people once again on magic asterisks, on rosy scenarios, on unspecified cuts, on a budget that is balanced sometime in the future but is not the responsibility of these Members of the Republican conference at this time out on the floor of the Senate? Can we pull it off again? Can we fool the American people again? Can we hide our real agenda, which is to give a huge tax break to the wealthiest people in America?

In the same way that David Stockman called that the Trojan horse to get the tax break for the wealthy, so too have they built another budget as a Trojan horse to get the tax breaks without any of those specific cuts in programs that they know will be like touching political kryptonite. They are not going to lay out which programs are going to get cut at some point in the future.

That is why these tax cuts are irresponsible. The framework that Republican leadership has presented is devoid of details for what it will do to families. It doesn't specify what it will do for small businesses, and it is completely silent on how it will assist workers, who have been struggling for years to keep up with the rising costs of living.

What the Republican tax framework is crystal clear on is how it will benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. In fact, the tax framework released by the Republican leadership will send 80 percent of the benefits directly to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest individuals in this country--Ronald Reagan redux, David Stockman redux. And 80 percent of the benefits go to the upper 1 percentile. What did David Stockman say? ``But, I mean, [the plan] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.''

What we have now is a Republican Party genetically hard-wired in order to do the same thing that failed as an economic policy in the early 1980s. It was such a catastrophe and it was so bad that Republicans actually had to get together with Democrats in order to fix it after it went into effect.

This particular version of it will provide tax cuts for shareholders and CEOs. It allows the richest 1 percent of all Americans to concentrate wealth to an even greater degree than they already can, while many middle-class families will actually see their tax bill go up. They want to take away the State and local tax deduction. We are going to see millions of Americans with an actual tax increase. They are the middle class. There is almost nothing in this bill that helps the middle three quintiles. From 20 percent to 80 percent, there is almost nothing in this bill that helps them.

They know it, by the way. They know what they are doing. They know that 80 percent of this is going to the upper 1 percentile. They know almost nothing goes to the middle three quintiles, and they also know they are going to take away the tax break for State and local deductions from those people as well. It is not a tax plan. It is a tax scam.

Despite their talk about how these tax giveaways for the rich will pay for themselves, the Republican tax plan will create a $2.4 trillion hole in the deficit. We know what Republicans and the Trump administration will do with those deficits. They will be used to go where the 1980s plan did not ultimately go, and that is to gut Medicare, to gut Medicaid, and to gut Social Security.

Let's give them credit. In this bill, at least on Medicare and Medicaid, they actually do talk about these specific cuts. They actually talk about it. There is a $470 billion cut in Medicare. You can hear that, grandma or grandpa. They are going to cut Medicare by $470 billion in this bill. I tell you one thing. Both grandma and grandpa may be old, but they are not stupid. They are not stupid. They know what you are doing. They are going to figure this out.

They want to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion, as well, for those tax breaks for the upper 1-percenters. There is your plan. It is pretty simple to understand. Grandma and grandpa are going to understand it. The American people are going to understand it. It is all toward the Trojan horse to get the tax break for the upper 1 percentile.

The recent report from the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee found that the budget would also slash $5 trillion from critical programs like education and transportation. It is unspecified at this particular point in time because they know it would create a political nightmare for them. It would be ``nitro hits glycerin'' politically if they specify at this time where those cuts would come from.

Over the last 8 years, our friends on the other side of the aisle explained to us that the Federal deficits were the greatest threats facing our country. We couldn't invest in clean energy. We couldn't finance infrastructure. We couldn't do anything about healthcare or the people who need it in our country because of the threat to our national debt. Before that, we were famously told in the 2000s that deficits don't matter. Of course, that was after President Clinton's budgets in the 1990s put us on a path to a budget surplus.

Before that, David Stockman was convincing President Reagan that deficits were of no concern and should not get in the way of tax cuts for the wealthy. We have seen this movie before, and now, once again, it sounds like the present rhymes with the past.

We come back to the central erroneous premise of the Republican Party, which they continue to try to sell to the American people--that it is possible, simultaneously, to have massive tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent, to increase defense spending simultaneously and massively, and to balance the budget at the same time. It is not possible. The American people know it. They have seen it in the past. They are trying to run the same old movie past the American people, but it is all--in the immortal words of David Stockman--toward the goal of creating a Trojan horse to bring down the rates for the wealthiest people in America. That is the choice the American people are going to have to make.

This budget is a moral disgrace to be considered on the floor of the Congress--Medicare and Medicaid, a sacrifice for a tax break for the wealthiest people in our country. This is a shameful day in the history of this institution.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the obscenity that will be the attempt by the Republicans to insert into the budget bill an ability for the big oil companies of our country to be able to drill for oil in this sacred, pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I first wish to thank Senator Cantwell from the State of Washington, our great Democratic leader on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for her leadership not just on this issue but on so many other issues in the energy and environment area that we are having to confront during this era of Donald Trump.

Let me just tell my colleagues that the Republican budget is ultimately all about massive handouts to the 1-percent richest people in our country and to huge corporations, while doing almost nothing for working and middle-class Americans in our country. In this bill, the Republicans will slash Medicaid and Medicare while at the same time blowing a $1.5 trillion hole in the deficit to finance tax cuts for the superrich. But if that weren't bad enough, tucked inside of the Republican budget is a poison pill, one more massive corporate handout--a giveaway of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to Big Oil.

Senate Republicans have included instructions for the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution that would open the door for drilling in one of America's greatest natural resources. This GOP budget sets the stage for Republicans to ram drilling in the crown jewel of America's National Wildlife Refuge System through the Senate's using only a 50- vote threshold. This is nothing more than a Big Oil polar payout. This cold-hearted Republican budgetary scam only underscores the backward priorities of President Trump and congressional Republicans.

As our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico look desperately for relief from the devastation of Hurricane Maria, there has been no refuge in the Trump administration. When tens of millions of Americans wanted to be sure that their healthcare would be protected, there was no refuge in the Republican Party. But the instant billionaires and oil companies look for a tax cut, a refuge suddenly appears. That is when the Republicans can find a refuge. Unfortunately, it is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But the Republican plan to offset $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the superwealthy will only result in $1 billion being able to be raised from allowing the oil companies to drill in this pristine refuge. That plan neither makes any sense nor will it actually bring in any cents sufficient to pay for this

huge tax break and the deficit they are creating.

Maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think there is a different exchange rate above the Arctic Circle, but down here those numbers don't even come close to adding up. This is exactly the kind of polarizing politics we need to get away from--giveaways to Big Oil and billionaires at the expense of the American people and our planet.

There is a long, bipartisan history of fighting to protect the Arctic Refuge for future generations. It was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who began this bipartisan legacy by setting aside the core of the Arctic Refuge in 1960. It was further protected by President Kennedy and Senator Tom Udall's father, Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall, during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Then, Representative Mo Udall succeeded in doubling the size of the Refuge, protecting even more of this untrammeled wilderness. Protecting this special place has always been an issue that rose above party lines, and it should continue to do so.

In 2015 the Interior Department recommended that Congress designate this area as wilderness and not open it to drilling. In making that wilderness recommendation, the Department of the Interior concluded that the ``Arctic Refuge exemplifies the idea of wilderness--to leave some remnants of this nation's natural heritage intact, wild, and free of the human intent to control, alter, or manipulate the natural order.''

The Coastal Plain is the biological heart of the Refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service has called it the ``center for wildlife activity'' in the Refuge. It supports more than 250 species, including caribou, polar bears, and migratory birds, but that is exactly where this Republican legislation would allow Big Oil to drill, forever despoiling this ecosystem.

Two years ago, we lifted the four-decades-old ban on exporting American crude oil. As a result of that giveaway to the big oil industry, we are now exporting more U.S. crude oil--nearly 1 million barrels a day--than we could ever produce from drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

We have a fracking revolution taking place in our country right now. We hear it over and over from President Trump. We hear it from the Republicans: There is a fracking revolution. We are on our way to energy independence. We should lift the ban on exporting oil out of the United States. We should start selling it around the world to the highest bidder. We have so much oil that we can afford to send it out of our own country. Don't worry about it; there is no problem with exporting American oil.

As a matter of fact, what the Trump administration also says is this: Don't worry about the fuel economy standards in America. We are going to start to review them so we can lower--lower--the goals for our country for making the vehicles that we drive in our country more efficient.

Where do we put the oil in our country? We put 70 percent into gasoline tanks. We don't have to be a detective to figure out what happens if, instead of having our cars continue to get more and more efficient in terms of reducing the amount of oil that we need, we have our standards get lower and lower, and, as a result, we need to consume more oil.

What does the Trump administration say? They say they are going to review the fuel economy standards. They are going to take a ``we can't do it'' stand. They are going to take an ``it's too hard to improve the economy standards'' stand. That is what they said for four decades: It is too hard.

But during the Obama administration they were able to put on the books a standard that moves America to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025 in the United States of America--54.5 miles per gallon. That is where the plug-in hybrid revolution comes from. That is where the all-electric vehicle revolution comes from. That is where Elon Musk comes from. That is where all of these statements coming from the Chinese, the Indians, Volvo, and others come from. It is this movement toward plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles, reducing the amount of oil that we consume,--not just here in the United States, but around the globe.

What does the Trump administration say? We can't do it. It is too hard. We are going to review those standards. So they are saying: We don't have the technological capability to accomplish something that avoids the necessity of having to drill in a pristine wildlife refuge--to put a gasoline station on top of something that should be preserved for generations to come. They are saying: We can't improve the fuel economy standards. We are going to export 1 million barrels of oil a day. Guess what. We are going to go up into the Arctic Refuge in order to find the oil so that the gas guzzlers can stay on the road and so we can export oil to China. We are going to allow, finally, for the Big Oil cartel--which is now taking over the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, and the EPA--the ability to be able to despoil one of the last untrammeled, perfect, pristine areas in our country.

That is just fundamentally wrong, and we are going to have a vote on it on the floor of the Senate during this budget debate. To raise $1 billion total as they run up a deficit of $1.5 trillion, they despoil this sacred part of our country. It is immoral. It is wrong. It says that the Trump administration is handing over the keys of our government to the big oil companies. It is saying: No matter how many hurricanes hit our country, no matter how warm the water is off the coast of our country, they are going to remain in climate change denial--that it is really not a problem. Therefore, you don't have to increase the fuel economy standards. You don't have to reduce the fossil fuels going into the atmosphere. You don't have to worry. Climate change--ignore it. Fuel economy standards--we are not going to do it. What is the one thing we will do? For the oil industry, we are going to allow them to drill in the pristine Arctic wilderness. It is immoral--fundamentally immoral.

For 60 years, going back to Eisenhower, we figured out how to protect it. But now, at the height of a fracking revolution, with millions of new barrels of oil; at the height of an incredible plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicle revolution, as we are reducing the amount of oil we are consuming in our country; at the height of storms that are assaulting every part of our Nation with an intensity we have never seen in our history, the President says: I am going to ignore all of those issues and just focus upon what Big Oil wants.

This is going to be a monumental debate we will have on the floor of the Senate this week. I am looking forward to that debate because I think the American people are going to want to know who has voted which way on this critical environmental issue--the environment issue, in my opinion--which will be taken on the floor of the Senate this week and will be led by our great leader on energy and environment issues, Senator Maria Cantwell, from the State of Washington. She has been a clear, consistent, insistent voice on these issues.

I think this week we are going to have the kind of historic debate the American people will want us to have on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a tragedy took place in Las Vegas this week. It is a tragedy that has affected hundreds of families. It is a tragedy in which each and every one of us sends our prayers to those who have lost loved ones. And to those who have family members who are now hospitalized, we send our prayers to you as well, with the great hope that a full recovery is in their future.

This was an unimaginable event that occurred in our country. It is now time for us to talk about this issue. There are many people who say this is not the time to talk about it, but the truth is, the only thing the National Rifle Association wants more than to sell lots of gun silencers is to put a silencer on the debate about gun safety legislation. The only thing the NRA wants more than allowing nationwide concealed carry laws is to conceal the overwhelming support for background checks. The only thing the NRA wants more than to stifle smart gun technology is to stifle debate on gun violence prevention.

So to anyone who says having this debate now is too soon, it is already too late for at least 59 people in Las Vegas and hundreds of others who were wounded. We should not wait another day.

We need to pass commonsense gun safety legislation so that we can hold a moment of silence for the National Rifle Association's stranglehold on American politics. That is what must end in our country.

We need a debate on this floor on background checks. We need a debate in this Chamber on whether we are going to do research on the relationship between guns and violence in our society. We don't need to debate the issue of bringing silencers into our society that can be attached to guns and that would have made it infinitely more difficult for the police to find where the shooter was or for people to know that they needed to hide or move to a more secure location. That would not have happened. We would not have had 59 deaths; we could have had 259 deaths, 559 deaths, or 959 deaths because a silencer would have given less notice to all of those people that they should be moving and hiding and protecting themselves and their loved ones.

On concealed carry, the Republicans are moving a bill that allows for someone to conceal a gun under a law in one State--because that State allows you to conceal a gun, you would be able to move into any other State and continue to conceal a gun even though that State's laws prohibit concealing guns. They want that law to move through.

So when the Republicans talk about debating gun control, what they are talking about is lessening the safety around these guns, lowering the standards that would protect people, and allowing for silencers to now be proliferating on these assault weapons, these weapons of war that should not be on the streets of our country and that have the capacity to kill people without people hearing them.

They say they are needed because we need to protect people's hearing when they are firing assault weapons. Well, it is more important that the police hear the bullets and that the people who might be hit hear the sound of those bullets as they are leaving the gun. That is going to provide far more protection. It is far more important that the police in a State or in a city know that someone has a concealed weapon. It is critically important for police protection. But the National Rifle Association does not want those kinds of protections to remain on the books. That is who they are. That is what they want.

What should we be debating? We should be debating background checks. We should be debating whether someone should be able to buy a gun on Instagram and turn it into an ``insta-gun'' without background checks. That is what we should be talking about out here.

Over 90 percent of Americans want stronger background checks. Yet the Republican leadership turns a deaf ear to the request of the American people because the National Rifle Association does not want there to be background checks on people who are buying guns in our country.

More Americans have died from gun violence in the past 50 years on the streets of America than have died in all of our Nation's wars overseas in our entire history. Let me say that again. More people have died from guns in our own country in the last 50 years than all of our soldiers, sailors, Air Force, and marines have died going all the way back to 1776. That is how much of an epidemic this is in our country. It is an epidemic that now kills 33,000 people every single year in our country, but the Federal Government's investment in researching gun violence is zero.

Diabetes--76,000 U.S. deaths annually; they get $170 million at the Centers for Disease Control. Flu--57,000 deaths a year; they get $187 million for research. Asthma--3,600 deaths a year; they get $29 million for research at the Centers for Disease Control. Gun violence--zero. An epidemic is ravaging our country, and the Republicans will not fund research to find this link between violence and the use of guns in our society, to do the research that can help us to reduce this carnage on the streets of our country. And because of an appropriations rider from the 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control hasn't conducted research into the causes of gun violence and how to prevent it. If 20 young children in Newtown had died of Ebola, we would have invested funding to study it. If 59 people in Las Vegas died of Zika, would we study it? Absolutely. But our country is suffering from an illness, and we have let it spread because we refuse to write a treatment plan.

The American Medical Association supports ending the ban on research. The American Public Health Association supports ending the ban on research. More than 141 groups want to end this ban on researching the link between guns and violence in our society.

The bill I have introduced with Representative Maloney gives $10 million to the Centers for Disease Control every single year. Shouldn't we be studying how to stop people from firing guns and give the medical, the scientific, and the public health community the resources they need?

We also need to develop new smart gun technologies that would improve safety and reduce accidental shootings. My bill would authorize grants to develop and personalize handgun technology to increase efficiency and decrease costs. If you can use a fingerprint to operate your iPhone, you should be able to do the same thing with your gun to make sure that safety is ensured, to make sure it is your thumbprint on that gun, that if your gun is stolen or lost, no one else would be able to use that gun. Does that make sense? Well, your thumb can work for your smartphone. Your thumb could also work for smart gun technology.

So this is where we are. We are at this critical point where some people are saying: Not now. It is inappropriate. We shouldn't be raising these issues.

But what we should be debating is what the American people want us to debate. Over 90 percent want background checks on anyone who buys a gun in our country to make sure they are qualified, to make sure they do not have something in their background that should disqualify them from owning a gun in our country.

Our debate here should really be about one thing: making the NRA stand for ``not relevant anymore'' in American politics. The task for the Republican Party is different. It will be whether they will kill these bills that would legalize more fully silencers being put on automatic weapons in our country, kill the concealed carry law, which is moving through the House and Senate driven by Republicans, and, instead, debate the kinds of things that make our country safer, the kinds of things that poll after poll is showing that the American people want us to do. That is going to be our challenge in the days and weeks and months ahead.

This is the time; this is the place. We are the people who must be conducting this debate to make sure we add an extra measure of safety that American families can rely upon.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I wish to start my remarks with my deepest condolences and prayers for the people of Las Vegas and for the families and loved ones of the victims of the worst

mass shooting in our Nation's history. The Nation's heart breaks that innocent concertgoers had to suffer such senseless violence. May you find the strength and love to overcome your grief, to heal, and to move forward.

We owe our gratitude to the brave first responders for their efforts last night and to the medical professionals who are working tirelessly to heal wounds and save lives right now. But enough is enough. Americans are tired of living in fear that their community will be the next Newtown, Aurora, Orlando, or Las Vegas. We must act so that we do not become numb to this preventable carnage.

This epidemic of gun violence in our country is not preordained. It is preventable. We can begin by banning these military-style assault weapons, like the AR-51, which are the guns of choice for those who seek to inflict mass casualties on civilians. These are weapons that belong in combat, not in our communities.

Unfortunately, the gun lobby prevailed on Congress to let the assault weapons ban expire in 2004, but we need it now more than ever. We must also pass legislation to ensure that all gun purchases include a background check. Ninety-two percent of Americans support expanded background checks. No one should be able to purchase a gun through Facebook or Instagram without a background check. Instagram should not be ``Instagun,'' which it is in America today.

Let's also close the gun-show loophole that allows anyone to go into one of these Kmarts full of killing machines and buy a gun without a background check. Let's close the loophole that allows domestic abusers to buy guns. Let's close the loophole that allows straw purchasers to buy guns and flood our streets with them. Let's repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or the PLCAA, and take away the gun manufacturers' immunity from civil liability. PLCAA should stand for ``protecting lives, creating arms accountability.''

We must also recognize that this epidemic of gun violence is a public health emergency, and we must treat it that way. We must fully fund this critical research agenda at the Centers for Disease Control and give the CDC the resources it needs.

We will hear lots of people say that now is not the time to politicize this tragedy, that talking about legislation is insensitive and wrong. The only thing the NRA wants more than to sell lots of gun silencers is to put a silencer on the debate about gun safety legislation. The only thing the NRA wants more than allowing nationwide concealed carry laws is to conceal the overwhelming support for background checks. The only thing the NRA wants more than to stifle smart gun technology is to stifle debate on gun violence protection.

So to anyone who says having this debate now is too soon, it is already too late for at least 58 people in Las Vegas and the hundreds of others who were wounded. We should not wait another day. We need to pass commonsense gun safety legislation so we can hold a moment of silence for the NRA's stranglehold on American politics. We must make ``NRA'' stand for ``not relevant anymore'' in American politics and in our country. That should be our agenda here on the floor of the Senate.

What is wrong is leaving Americans in our communities unprotected yet again from gun violence. What is wrong is not having a debate and allowing the NRA to block sensible gun safety legislation. We must act so that we do not become numb to the preventable carnage for the people of Las Vegas and the people of Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, and every community in our country. That should be our responsibility now in this country.

Mr. President, I wish to turn my attention to the confirmation of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the subject of today's vote on the Senate floor.

Last week, I took to the floor to explain how, in his short tenure as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai has stood up for big corporations and ignored American consumers.

Under Ajit Pai, the FCC now stands for ``forgetting consumers and competition.'' Here are the five reasons I gave.

No. 1, on net neutrality, I explained how Ajit Pai wants to take a ``weed whacker''--his words--to net neutrality, allowing broadband providers to serve as internet gatekeepers and pick online winners and losers.

No. 2, on privacy, Chairman Pai has actively supported efforts to allow broadband providers to sell consumers' sensitive information without their consent, as well as eliminating requirements for those companies to put in place data security protections, despite the obvious need to protect personal information.

No. 3, on megamergers, Mr. Pai has paved the way for massive mergers, which will squeeze out independent programmers and lead to higher prices for consumers.

No. 4, on the E-rate, the education rate, Chairman Pai has refused to commit to protecting the E-rate, the most successful educational technology program in our country's history, which links up schools and libraries to the internet.

No. 5, on the Lifeline Program, Mr. Pai has undercut the Lifeline Program, which provides access to voice and internet service for millions of low-income Americans.

The case against Chairman Pai's nomination is clear. I want to spend a few more minutes today on the particularly critical issue of net neutrality, the chief governing principle of the internet.

Net neutrality ensures that all internet traffic is treated equally, requiring that internet service providers like AT&T, Charter, Verizon, and Comcast do not block, slow down, sensor, or prioritize internet traffic.

Today, essentially every company is an internet company. Every company has to deal with the digital revolution to be relevant in the 21st century. In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That is $25 billion worth of investment--half of all venture capital in this country. That is good.

To meet America's insatiable demand for broadband internet, the U.S. broadband and telecommunications industry--the big companies--invested more than $87 billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is the highest rate of annual investment in the last 10 years. That is good.

We have hit the sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless technologies is very high. Job creation is very high. Venture capital investment in online startups is very high. With net neutrality rules in place, the best ideas, not merely the best funded ideas, can thrive in the 21st century.

Chairman Pai says he ``likes'' net neutrality, but then he says he wants to take an ax to the very order that established today's net neutrality rules. That is like saying you value democracy but don't really like the Constitution. It makes no sense. Net neutrality is the organizing principle of the internet.

Chairman Pai and the ISPs--that is, internet service providers, the big companies--keep walking around, whispering how title II is some terrible word, some terrible thing.

Let's understand how we landed here. What is title II? It gets very mysterious until you put it into very simple language. In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission attempted to put net neutrality rules in place without reclassifying broadband under title II of the Communications Act. The District of Columbia Circuit Court proceeded to invalidate those rules and said to the Federal Communications Commission: Here is how you can do it, and it will not be struck down. Here is a smart way for you to put net neutrality on the books, which will make it legal.

So the Federal Communications Commission, in correctly reading the court decision, went back, and in 2015 adopted the open internet order, which reclassified broadband as a telecommunications service under title II--under this ability to regulate. They did it, and the circuit court of appeals upheld the rules in a 2016 decision.

There it is: instructed by the court how to do it, follow the instructions, implement, done. It is now baked into the personality of the internet to have openness. The apertures are there for anyone to be able to get on, not to be discriminated against. That is what the internet should be like in the 21st century.

Title II is appropriate because it was Congress's intent to preserve the FCC's

authority to forestall threats to competition and innovation in telecommunications services, even as those technologies used to offer those services evolve over time.

We are not locked into one period of technology. As it evolves, so, too, does an evolution occur in terms of what openness means--the ability of everyone to be able to use the internet without being discriminated against.

Broadband has become the single most important telecommunications service Americans use to transmit information to one another, and it has become clear that innovators, businesses, and consumers overwhelmingly view broadband as a telecommunications service.

This is common sense to Americans around the country, with the only exception being big telecommunications lobbyists and lawyers who work to close this internet, who want to stop this incredible, entrepreneurial, democracy-enhancing set of rules that exists to ensure that this communications mechanism is not controlled by just a small number of companies.

Ajit Pai has said that he likes net neutrality, but he thinks it should be voluntary. But voluntary regulations will not work. We know that the broadband industry--your cable, your wireless, your telecommunications provider--cannot regulate themselves. They struggle to even show up on time to install or fix your service.

Do we really trust the broadband industry to resist leveraging their internet gatekeeper role and putting their online competitors at an unfair disadvantage? Of course not.

Americans have made their voices heard about net neutrality. More than 22 million Americans have written to the Federal Communications Commission in the past several months, sending a clear message of support for net neutrality. Hear that again: 22 million Americans sent a message to the Federal Communications Commission that they do not want to see a change in the net neutrality rules for our country. Yet Ajit Pai will not listen. His plan will allow broadband providers to stifle innovation, stifle entrepreneurship. His plan will allow big broadband barons to crush competition, reduce choice, and then make consumers pay more.

We cannot allow this to happen. That is why this vote we are about to take is so important. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up for consumers and to vote no on Ajit Pai's nomination to be the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.