Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I hope that later this evening we will be able to have a vote that would allow us to open the government back up and recommence negotiations on immigration and a whole range of other issues that are currently of concern to Members here and, I think, of concern, fairly, to the American people. So I hope we will have the 60 votes that are necessary to do that when we have that vote later today.

In fact, what we will be voting on later today has been modified from what was originally sent over from the House, which was a 4-week continuing resolution. This, I believe, will be a 3-week continuing resolution, modified at the request of some Democrats here in the Senate. I hope we can get the government up and functioning again. It is really important, in my view, that we do that.

There has been a lot of discussion throughout the course of the afternoon here on the floor and in the previous days leading up to this about who is to blame and all that sort of thing. I don't

think the American people, frankly, care much. They just want to see their elected officials work together to get results.

The one thing I will point out--because a number of my colleagues here on the Democratic side have spoken earlier today and consistently said that this is President Trump's fault somehow--is that the President of the United States doesn't appropriate a single dime. That is not his authority under the Constitution. That is the authority of the Congress. That is our article I power. Congress has the ability to appropriate funds. The President of the United States--let me repeat-- cannot appropriate a single dime. So the idea that this is somehow the President's fault is completely missing the point and is simply an attempt to try and dodge responsibility.

I would also point out, as many of our colleagues have come down here today and tried to blame the President and tried to blame Republicans, or whatever, that I think the American people get this, and it seems like the news media seems to get it. These are headlines.

This is from the Associated Press: ``Senate Democrats derail bill to avert shutdown.''

New York Times: Senate Democrats blocked passage of a stopgap spending bill to keep the government open.

Bloomberg: Senate Democrats block GOP funding plan as shutdown kicks in.

Those are just a few of the coverages of this by the media.

The point I would make is that I think it is not being lost on people outside this Chamber what is happening here. This is purely an attempt to hijack the Senate over a debate on an issue which, frankly, doesn't have an urgent deadline. There is nothing that says we have to have the issue of DACA solved tomorrow, or even the day after that. There is a deadline in March, and there were good-faith negotiations under way between Republicans and Democrats in the House and in the Senate to resolve that issue, and it is an issue which, frankly, needs to be resolved. There is great sympathy on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate for how to deal with those young people who were brought into this country illegally, through no fault of their own--a tremendous amount of sympathy, I would say. The President has said he wants to see that issue resolved, which is why those negotiations and discussions were under way--the House of Representatives and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats. Bicameral, bipartisan negotiations were under way to address that issue.

The other thing that was included in the funding resolution, of course, was an extension--a reauthorization--of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which I think pretty much everybody here supports. There may be some who would vote against that, but I doubt it. I think it enjoys broad bipartisan support. It is a 6-year extension. That is something we needed to get done as well. That is included in this funding resolution that the Democrats are objecting to.

Now, one of the reasons for objecting, interestingly enough, as I listened this afternoon, was that it should have been done last year. Yes, OK, so does that mean we can't vote for it now? We have a fix in place. We have a solution in place, a 6-year reauthorization of the CHIP program. I serve on the Senate Finance Committee. When we reported it out, it was 5 years. So it has added an additional year. There is a 6-year reauthorization of CHIP, and all of a sudden now, Democrats say: We can't. I don't know why we are voting on it now; we should have voted on it last year.

When does it become too late in the game to solve a problem that needs to be solved?

I think, notwithstanding their assertions this afternoon on the floor--that somehow that ought to prevent us from moving forward with that legislation or give them an excuse to vote to shut down the government--that that is just beyond me. I find it incredibly hard to believe.

The other thing that was pointed out, which the Democrats have said, is that they have made this about DACA, which I get. It is an issue that they are very passionate about and, as I said before, there is passion on both sides about that issue, and there is a real desire to find a solution. But I am not sure that you are in the best position to find that solution in the middle of a government shutdown.

I want to point out what Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, said back in 2013. This was on a Sunday morning talk show, ABC's ``This Week,'' in the context of the 2013 shutdown. Senator Schumer said then:

Basically, it's sort of like this. Someone goes into your

house, takes your wife and children hostage and then, says,

let's negotiate over the price of your house. You know, we

could do the same thing on immigration. We believe strongly

in immigration reform. We could say we're shutting down the

government, we're not gonna raise the debt ceiling, until you

pass immigration reform. . . . It would be governmental

chaos.

It was governmental chaos in 2013, according to Senator Schumer then, now the Democratic leader--governmental chaos to shut the government down or hold the government hostage and try to get another issue addressed. Interestingly enough--it is almost prescient here--he made that same argument about immigration. He went on to say that there are Democrats here.

We could do the same thing on immigration. We believe

strongly in immigration reform.

Of course, at the time that the shutdown happened in 2013, it had to do with ObamaCare, and, in fact, the roles were reversed or flipped in that situation. It was the Republicans, and, frankly, President Obama at the time did a fairly effective job of pointing out, as I am pointing out right now, that he can't appropriate money. That is the role of the Congress.

But the point is, at that time, the Democratic leader thought it would create governmental chaos to shut the government down, and it should not be done to try to solve some other unrelated issue. Yet here we are, 2 days into a government shutdown that could have been totally avoided. We had a vote a couple of nights ago--a bipartisan vote, I might add--to keep the government open.

So what do we have so far? The House of Representatives has sent a resolution to fund the government, to keep the government open, and to give us some additional time now to resolve some of these outstanding issues, including the DACA issue. The President of the United States has expressed support for that funding resolution to keep the government open. He has made it very clear that he wants the government to stay open. He has also made it very clear that he wants a solution on DACA and is willing to engage in conversations and discussions about how to resolve that issue.

Then, we had a vote in the Senate, which was bipartisan--a bipartisan majority in the Senate. Five Democrats joined Republicans here in the Senate on a resolution to keep the government open and functioning, and to keep it from shutting down.

So we have bipartisan support in the Senate for that--majority support--and the House of Representatives and the President are all on record. The only thing right now preventing us from opening up the government and getting back to where we were, discussing and debating those issues, and to extending health insurance coverage to 9 million children in this country--the only thing standing in the way of that-- is the Senate Democrats.

So I am hopeful that this evening, when the time comes to vote, we will have a sufficient number of Democrats here in the Senate who will join with Republicans. We had a bipartisan majority, as I said, Friday night on the vote, but we didn't have the 60-vote threshold necessary to keep the government from shutting down. Now it is going to take 60 votes to open it back up. I am hoping there will be Democrats who will find their way to see that this does create, as Senator Schumer described, governmental chaos--a situation in which it is very difficult for people to see clearly and to have a fair, reasonable, thoughtful discussion about how to solve big issues like DACA--a discussion, which, as I pointed out, is already under way.

It is pretty clear what is going on here. The media understands it. The American people, I think, understand it. And attempts by our colleagues on the other side to obfuscate it or try to dodge it or try to run away from it or deflect it or create some other shiny object for people to look at just aren't going to work. It is clear. It is a matter

of record. It is a vote. We had the vote once on Friday. We will have another vote tonight, another opportunity for Senate Democrats to go on the record and say: We aren't going to shut this government down; we are not going to keep this government shut down, and we are going to move forward in a reasonable way to deal with the issues that we think need to be dealt with on behalf of the American people--not in the middle of a crisis mode or, as described by Senator Schumer, in the middle of governmental chaos.

Let's get on with that. Let's have the vote, and let's hope that we have a bipartisan 60-vote threshold that will allow us to get this government back open and get these discussions and negotiations back on track.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today, as they do every year at this time, tens of thousands of Americans from across the country, including from my home State of South Dakota, will march from the National Mall to the U.S. Supreme Court to stand up for the right to life. The march is always inspiring with the huge crowds who come year after year, the commitment and enthusiasm of the participants, and most of all, the young people--teenagers, college students, young adults.

Abortion has been an ugly scar on our Nation for a long while now, but seeing all these young people at the March for Life every year fills me with hope because I know that these young people get it. They know that life matters, and they are ready and willing to stand up and say that, to stand up for the hundreds of thousands of unborn Americans who are killed every year in this country by abortion.

This year, I hope to see Congress consider the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This legislation would protect unborn children who have reached the age of 20 weeks--that is 5 months of pregnancy-- from being killed by abortion. Right now, there are only seven countries in the world that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Among those

countries are China, North Korea, and the United States of America. I would like to suggest that is not the company Americans want to be keeping when it comes to protecting human rights.

Mr. President, 63 percent of the American people support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and that doesn't surprise me. Take a look at a 5-month-old unborn baby on an ultrasound. It is pretty darn obvious that is a human being in there. I think most people instinctively know that human beings, no matter how small they are, are worthy of protection.

Five months into a pregnancy, babies are doing a lot. They are sucking their thumbs. They are yawning and stretching. They are actively moving around. They are responding to noises, and they feel and respond to pain. The scientific evidence on this point is clear: 5 months into a pregnancy, unborn babies feel pain. Yet, in our country, it is legal to abort these babies. The procedures used to perform these abortions are so brutal and inhuman that it is difficult to even talk about them. Most Americans would rightly shrink from treating an animal the way we treat unborn human beings.

Every year, there are hundreds of thousands of abortions in this country. Planned Parenthood reports that it performed 321,384 abortions in 2016. That number is so large that it is hard to fathom. To put that into some kind of perspective, that is equivalent to more than one- third of the population of my home State of South Dakota. Unfortunately, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would not eliminate all of these abortions, but it would make a difference, and it would bring us one step closer to the day when every child born and unborn is protected in law.

To all those who are marching for life today, thank you for being here. Thank you for reminding all of us about an injustice that it is all too easy for us to ignore. Thank you for standing up for all those babies. The fight may be long, but I know that at the end of the day, it is life that will win.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, Democrats here in the Senate have really raised obstruction to an art form in this Congress. The Presidential nominees--they have obstructed and obstructed some more, even when they ultimately planned to support the nominee. We have had many nominees who have come to the floor who have been objected to and had to go through the long postcloture process, only to get to the end of it and have those nominees be voted out in many cases unanimously. I have seen that happen in the committee that I chair, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. We have nominees over here who are noncontroversial who are being held up by the Democrats. Many of them are in important

positions in our government. The FRA--Federal Railroad Administrator-- is a key safety position in the administration who is being held up by the Democrats even though he is supremely qualified for the job and I think will have a huge bipartisan vote here in the Senate, were it to occur.

We have seen this consistent pattern of obstruction when it comes to nominees and giving the President an opportunity to fill his administration with the positions that are key to not only his getting his agenda done but the American people seeing their government function in a way that represents their interests.

Tax reform. Well, Democrats absolutely refused to work with Republicans on a bill. They fought hard against passage despite the fact that the Democrats have previously called for reform and supported many of the very proposals that were included in the law.

Now, of course, the Democrats are threatening to shut down the government and block funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program--a program they claim to support--because they are not happy that they are not getting an immigration bill that they want this week. That is right, Mr. President--Democrats are threatening to shut down the government and block funding for health insurance for 9 million low-income children because they are not getting the bill they want when they want it.

Members on both sides of the aisle are eager to find a legislative solution to the status of children who were brought to this country illegally through no fault of their own. There is broad support among both Democrats and Republicans for getting a solution to that. In fact, there is a group who has been meeting every day on that very issue in an attempt to try to put together a solution that would help address that issue in a way that not only resolves the status of these young people who came to this country illegally but also addresses the broader issue of border security and chain migration and visa lotteries and all those sorts of things. So there are a series of issues that relate to immigration that are being worked on now by both sides of the aisle in the hope that they can come to a solution about that, but there is no agreement just yet.

While we hope to get to a deal as soon as possible, the deadline for reaching an agreement is not imminent, not to mention that passing a bill on the status of Dreamers is completely unrelated to the need to fund the government.

If the Democrats continue with their plan to block government funding, the government will shut down tomorrow night. That means that all kinds of government services will be affected in areas ranging from veterans, to public health, to worker and product safety, and to national parks and monuments. Funding for our military will also be threatened, which represents a particular danger as we try to rebuild our military after years of neglect under the Obama administration. Also, of course, as I mentioned, the Children's Health Insurance Program will not get funded, and 9 million low-income children will be well on the way to losing their healthcare coverage.

The Children's Health Insurance Program extension that we want to pass as part of this bill is something that has long been supported by Democrats. In fact, the policy in this bill is virtually identical to the bipartisan extension legislation that was introduced by Senators Hatch and Wyden and passed by the Senate Finance Committee last year, except that we have included an additional year of funding. I serve as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and when we passed that bill last year, it was a 5-year authorization. The legislation that we will have in front of us this evening that will fund the government includes a 6-year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. That would mark the longest extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program since the program was created back in 1997. It would provide 6 years of guaranteed funding so that care for children and pregnant women can continue without disruption.

It is extremely difficult to understand how the same Democrats who have strongly advocated for this program are now opposing legislation to extend it and seeking to shut down the government. In fact, Democrats are now actively bragging that they have the votes to shut down the government.

Nobody thinks the short-term funding bill before us is ideal. We would much rather have a long-term agreement, and eventually we will. But this bill will fund the government, it will protect the military, and it will provide a very significant extension of an essential healthcare program for low-income children.

Democrats' intention of opposing this bill because they are upset that they can't get exactly what they want, when they want it, is irresponsible given the good-faith efforts that are being made by both sides to come to an agreement when it comes to the issue of immigration and when it comes to the issue of the broader funding debate we are having here in the Senate. This attempt by the Democrats is totally shortsighted. It is a partisan, political maneuver that will harm our troops and some of the most vulnerable among us.

We still have time before the government shuts down, and I hope the more moderate elements of the Democratic Party here in the Senate will rethink their leader's opposition to funding the government and to extending health insurance for low-income children and for pregnant women. That is what we are talking about. That is simply what this does. There is still time to come together to pass this bill and to move on to the other important priorities that are facing our Nation.

I hope that cooler heads will prevail, that people here in this Chamber will come to their senses, and that we can pass a funding bill this evening that would avoid a government shutdown tomorrow and would fund for 6 years the Children's Health Insurance Program and set up the conditions that would allow the discussions to continue about how to resolve some of the outstanding and unrelated issues that still need to come to a resolution.

That is my hope. I hope our colleagues on both sides will come to the realization that this idea that is being put forward by the Democrats-- and for which, as I said, they are taking credit right now--of shutting down the government is really a bad idea and not in the best interests of the American people, nor those 9 million children who would benefit from a long-term extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, tax reform has been the law of the land for less than a month, but it is already fostering a new era of economic optimism, and American workers are seeing the benefits. For years, American businesses, large and small, were weighed down by high tax rates and growth-killing provisions of the Tax Code. Plus, our outdated international tax rules left America's global businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changed all that. We lowered tax rates across

the board for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We expanded business owners' ability to recover investments they make in their businesses, which will free up cash they can reinvest in their operations and their workers. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which up until January 1 was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century by replacing our outdated worldwide system with what is called a territorial tax system so American businesses are not operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors.

Despite the fact that the new law has been in place for less than a month, it is already having a noticeable effect. Businesses are seeing a future defined by growth and success, and they are already passing some of the expected benefits on to their workers. Business after business has announced special bonuses, wage hikes, or benefit increases: AT&T, Bank of America, Comcast, American Airlines, Southwest, Visa, Nationwide Insurance, Jet Blue, and the list goes on and on.

In addition to giving out bonuses to eligible employees, Walmart is raising its starting wage for hourly employees, expanding maternity and parental leave benefits, and creating a new adoption benefit for employees. More than 1 million Walmart employees will benefit from the changes.

Aflac is boosting retirement benefits for its workers by increasing the size of its 401(k) match from 50 to 100 percent on the first 4 percent of employees' contributions. It has also announced a onetime $500 contribution to the retirement account of every employee.

PNC is giving a $1,000 bonus to 90 percent of its employees and adding $1,500 to employees' pension accounts. It is also boosting its minimum pay.

Similarly, Great Western Bank, which is headquartered in my State of South Dakota, is raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour and providing a $500 bonus or wage increase for nearly 70 percent of its workforce. The bank is also enhancing its employee healthcare program and doubling its annual contribution to its Making Life Great Grants community reinvestment program.

I could go on, but the good news is not limited to increased wages, bonuses, and benefits, as important as that is, particularly to people who are living paycheck to paycheck, but companies are also acting to keep jobs and to create new ones.

Fiat Chrysler just announced it will be adding 2,500 jobs at a Michigan factory to produce pickups it has been making in Mexico. In October, CVS Health announced it would create 3,000 new jobs if the corporate tax rate was reduced. In my own backyard, Molded Fiber Glass is keeping its doors open longer than expected, which is good news for its employees and the entire community of Aberdeen, SD.

Then there are the utility companies. Utilities from around the country are benefiting from tax reform, and more than one is looking to pass on savings to consumers. Bloomberg reports that ``Exelon Corp., the biggest U.S. utility owner by sales, is already offering to reduce bills.'' In Illinois, ComEd is requesting permission to ``pass along approximately $200 million in tax savings to its customers in 2018.'' In Washington DC, Pepco has announced plans to pass on tax savings to customers beginning in the first quarter of this year.

All these benefits are going to make a real difference in families' lives this year and, in some cases, well into the future, and the main benefits of tax reform are still to come. The IRS just released the new withholding tables for the tax law, and Americans should start seeing the results in February. Thanks to lower income tax rates, the doubling of the standard deduction, and the doubling of the child tax credit, 90 percent of American workers--90 percent--should see bigger paychecks starting next month, and that is just the beginning.

One major goal of tax reform was to provide immediate, direct relief to hard-working Americans, and that is happening right now, but our other goal was to create the kind of robust, long-term economic growth that will provide long-term security for American families. That is already starting with the wave of bonuses and wage increases, but there is a lot more to come.

As businesses, large and small, experience the benefits of tax reform, American workers will see the benefits of tax reform. American workers will see increased access to the kinds of jobs, wages, and opportunities that will secure the American dream for the long term.

It is a good day in America, and it is going to get even better.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 09, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Combating Money Laundering and other forms of illicit Finance: Opportunities to reform and strengthen BSA Enforcement.''

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 09, 2018, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Alex Michael Azar II, of Indiana, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 09, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Opioid Crisis: An Examination of How We Got Here and How We Move Forward.''

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 09, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian

Security, Democracy, Humans Rights and Global Women's Issues

The Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Humans Rights and Global Women's Issues of the Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 09, 2018, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing entitled ``Attacks on U.S. Diplomats in Cuba: Response and Oversight.''

Mr. President, the beginning of a new session of Congress provides a good moment to look back at the previous year and take stock of the challenges ahead, and today what I would like to do is just take a few minutes to talk about the national security challenges facing our country and the importance of equipping our military to meet them.

By the end of the Obama administration, our military was facing a serious readiness shortfall. The Obama administration's failure to prioritize defense had left our armed services with manpower deficits and delayed the acquisition of 21st century weapons and equipment. Military effectiveness had been compromised by a culture of micromanagement in the Obama administration that seriously hampered the ability of troops and commanders to respond to conditions on the ground in a timely fashion, but within days of his inauguration, President Trump made clear that all this was going to change.

You can look at the situation we faced in the Middle East. The timeframe I am referring to right here, the mound of ground that is held by ISIS, that is in January of 2017.

Well, just a week after his inauguration, President Trump issued a Presidential memorandum on rebuilding the military. He directed a review of our military's readiness, and he set out an action plan to address manpower shortfalls, maintenance backlogs, acquisition costs and delays, and other drains on our military capabilities. President Trump also acted to free up military commanders to make decisions and to respond to conditions on the ground.

The fruits of his commitment to rebuilding our military and trusting our military leaders are already evident, most notably in the significant gains made against ISIS in 2017.

If you look at the chart I just showed, in January of 2017, and then you look at December of 2017, in terms of territory held, ISIS has been routed. In the first 11 months of the Trump administration, over 15,000 square miles were liberated from ISIS control, exceeding the total area freed in the preceding 2\1/2\ years. ISIS has lost over 98 percent of the territory it once held, and it hasn't gained any back.

Just a month ago, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi declared his country ``fully liberated'' from ISIS. In Syria, ISIS has lost control of its strongholds and now only remains in small pockets of the country.

All told, in the last year, more than 5.3 million people have been freed from the brutal grip of ISIS--more than double the previous gains. Families who have spent years fearing for their lives are seeing a chance for stability, peace, and order. If this year has shown us anything, it is that we can trust our military to do its job and deliver results.

President Trump delegated tactical authority and permitted our military to take action when action was needed, and military leaders credit this tactical authority for significant gains made on the ground.

The swift rise of ISIS was enabled, in part, by the Obama administration's shortsighted desire to withdraw from the fight against terrorism in the Middle East. The withdrawal of U.S. troops--on a timeline the Obama administration announced to our enemies--left a power vacuum in the region, and ISIS stepped in to fill the void. This is a mistake we cannot repeat.

While we have made tremendous strides against ISIS in the last year, we cannot simply take these wins and let our guard down. We know ISIS and other dark actors can operate in the shadows of the internet and social media, using their extensive networks to recruit and influence other would-be attackers in the United States and around the world.

As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which shares jurisdiction over some of these matters, I am committed to looking at what steps we can take to thwart terrorist recruitment and planning efforts and to keep America safe. Next week, I am holding a Commerce Committee hearing on what social media companies can do in this fight.

While we focus on combating terrorism, we cannot forget the conventional threats faced by our Nation and our allies. I mentioned gains against ISIS and Syria, but there remains the alarming challenge of growing Iranian influence there. Syria provides a convenient land bridge to connect Iran with Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is well on its way to being a proxy for the Iranian Army.

Of course, we continue to see the deadly consequences of Iran's continued smuggling of arms to Houthi rebels. Iran is a serious threat to stability in the Middle East and to our allies there, and we need to keep that in mind as we consider the failed Iran nuclear deal and the ongoing protests in Iran.

We also have to stay focused on the threat posed by North Korea. South and North Korea reestablished communications and just met to discuss the upcoming winter Olympics in South Korea. They announced, in addition to North Korea sending a delegation to the winter games, the two countries have agreed to hold military talks, but North Korea said it will not discuss its nuclear program at this time.

I think North Korea's nuclear program has to be addressed as a condition of any lasting peace, and the United States should lead its allies in making that crystal clear. While the talks are a notable development after 2 years of no communication between the two countries, we obviously need to be wary of North Korea's motives. We will have to see what actions follow and if the talks lead to any substantive steps by North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program.

President Trump and Ambassador Haley have made it clear that North Korea must abandon its dangerous ambitions, and increased sanctions are providing additional pressure. We should make no concessions without fundamental progress. Of course, this will require cooperation from China to help exert pressure on North Korea and uphold U.N. resolutions.

China has sought to tip the regional balance in its favor by objecting to the installation of missile defense platforms that would defend the United States and our allies against North Korean missiles. Meanwhile, it has been simultaneously expanding its own military, continuing to develop islands in international waters and exercising economic coercion.

President Trump's national security strategy correctly acknowledges both China and Russia as challengers to American influence, interests, security, and prosperity.

I have spoken on the Senate floor more than once to denounce Russia's continued annexation of Crimea, its subversion of Ukrainian sovereignty, and its efforts to undermine NATO, not to mention its continued denial of attempting to meddle with our election. Both the conventional challenges that our Nation continues to face and the persistent threat of radical terrorism underscore the perennial need to ensure that our military is the best prepared and the best equipped fighting force in the world.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. If we don't get national security right, the rest of what we do here is just conversation. We have to be able to defend our country and our allies.

Yes, investing in our national security and restoring our military, especially after years of neglect, will come at a cost, but as Army Chief of Staff GEN Mark Milley has said, ``The only thing more expensive than deterrence is actually fighting a war, and the only thing more expensive than fighting a war is fighting one and losing one.''

In the next few weeks, the Senate will have a chance to vote to increase funding for our troops and to take real steps to restore our military readiness. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will work with us. If there is any issue--any issue--in this Chamber that should be bipartisan, it is this one. It is not an exaggeration to say the security of our Nation, our ability to live as a free people, depends upon the strength of our military. It is time to make sure our military men and women have the resources they need to defend our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for the nomination of Ronald Batory to be the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration at the Department of Transportation and to express my deep frustration that this noncontroversial, highly qualified nominee has been languishing in the Senate for over 4 months due to objections by a handful of Democrats over a parochial issue entirely unrelated to the nominee's qualifications.

The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing on his nomination on July 26, 2017, and reported his nomination favorably out of committee with a unanimous voice vote on August 2, 2017. At that time, not a single Senator on the committee, Republican or Democrat, expressed any doubt about Mr. Batory's extensive expertise on rail safety issues.

Mr. Batory has over 45 years of experience in the railroad industry, in both management and operational positions, and he is a respected leader in driving organizational change and, most importantly, in advancing safety improvements. In fact, Railway Age called him noncontroversial and said: ``He is the best-qualified person to be the Federal Railroad Administrator in a very long time, perhaps in the agency's history.''

Yet, despite his unanimous approval from the committee, he has been blocked from assuming his leadership duties at this important safety regulatory agency. The FRA has critical safety decisions to make on a daily basis, and the agency needs strong strategic direction and management on time-sensitive safety issues. A senior adviser, which is Mr. Batory's current role at the DOT, does not have the same legal authority or ability to lead an agency as does a Senate-confirmed Administrator.

It is time to stop hamstringing Mr. Batory and get him confirmed so he can operate at full capacity. Unfortunately, it appears that we will not be able to do that without, once again, engaging in the cloture process on a noncontroversial nominee. This takes up valuable floor time that could be spent on other priorities. Yet it will, undoubtedly, still lead to his being confirmed by a large, bipartisan majority of the Senate. This pattern of obstruction--burning up a week or more of time to confirm two or three nominees who end up with overwhelming cloture and confirmation votes--must end.

The Batory nomination is also significant for another reason. Earlier this week, we saw the terrible tragedy of the Amtrak Cascades 501 derailment in Washington. Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with all of those affected, especially during this holiday season. As the NTSB continues its ongoing investigation, we will learn more about the causes of this derailment and the measures that might have prevented it.

To be clear, the tragic events of this week were not caused by a vacancy at the helm of the FRA, but the Senate must act now to install a leader at this agency to advance any safety solutions and oversight found to be needed as a result of the accident.

To date, much of the discussion surrounding this accident has been focused on positive train control or what we call PTC. While it is still early to know what, if any, impact PTC would have had on this accident, I could not agree more with the Democratic leader who earlier this week said: ``We need Positive Train Control.'' He went on to say: ``The Federal Department of Transportation is not pushing Federal PTC hard enough.''

If he truly believes the DOT needs to do more, why is he, along with a few of his colleagues, standing in the way of Mr. Batory's nomination? After all, Congress has tasked the FRA Administrator with providing the oversight and strong push that will be needed to ensure railroads meet next year's December 31, 2018, deadline for full PTC installation and training.

Make no mistake, a strong push is what many passenger railroads need. According to the FRA's latest quarterly progress report for passenger railroads, only 50 percent of locomotives are equipped and PTC operable; 64 percent of required PTC radio towers are installed; and only 24 percent of required route miles are in operation.

The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee expects to continue to play its role in conducting strong oversight of PTC implementation, including holding a hearing in 2018. However, what I do not expect the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to do is to grant any further change to the PTC deadline framework that is established in current law. That is why we need Mr. Batory. When finally confirmed, he will play a significant role in pushing expeditious and successful PTC implementation.

This is not just the view of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I might add, which, again, approved Mr. Batory, as I said earlier, unanimously, but also of the rail professionals who advance safety on the ground. The States for Passenger Rail Coalition, which consists of 25 State Departments of Transportation, wrote in July:

The issues facing the railroad industry today are

significant, and it is vital that we have an experienced,

capable and dedicated leader like Mr. Batory, who is willing

to work with the states to make the improvements necessary to

build a national rail system with an emphasis on increasing

mobility and reliability, while enhancing safety and security

now, and in the years to come.

Likewise, rail labor--representing conductors and

communication workers--and other industry groups urged the

Senate to proceed to Mr. Batory's nomination ``as soon as

possible,'' stressing ``the importance of having Mr. Batory's

expertise and leadership at the agency responsible for

railroad safety.''

That letter was written in September. It is now December. There is no reason for this delay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we have had an immensely qualified leader, Ronald Batory, ready to lead an important safety agency for over 4 months. The time for playing political games with the leadership of this railroad safety agency should be over. It is long past time that my Democratic colleagues end the obstruction, and this body must confirm Ronald Batory.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 261, Ronald Batory. I further ask that the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I am kind of beyond words to explain why we are objecting to someone who was unanimously approved out of the committee, is highly qualified, noncontroversial, and would run an incredibly important safety agency in this country. I just don't have words to explain what that objection might be.

I hope this is the last time the Democrats in the Senate will object to getting this important position filled with an individual who comes highly regarded, highly qualified, and has gone through the entire process--answered all of the questions through his confirmation--and is ready now for a final vote in the U.S. Senate, which would allow him to get the job and to get about the important work of ensuring that there is safety on the railroads in this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week Congress sent the President a tax reform bill that will translate into real relief for American families.

I have spent a lot of time on the floor of the Senate talking about how this bill will benefit these families in South Dakota and around the country.

Today I would like to take a few minutes to recognize the hard work of those Members and staff who made the legislative goal of tax reform a reality.

First, thank you to Senator Hatch for his leadership and members of the Finance Committee for a job well done.

Numerous hearings, member meetings, and a lot of compromise helped us get this bill to the finish line.

As a result, the contributions and priorities of each member of the Finance Committee and, frankly, those of the entire conference are reflected in the final product.

Having once served as a staffer here myself, I would like to recognize the many staff members who contributed to this product.

Mark Warren, who serves as my tax counsel, has put in countless hours on this legislation.

It has not been unusual over the last several months to find him in his office when I arrive at work before 7 a.m. and still at his desk late into the evening. With decades of experience, including time spent at the House Ways and Means Committee and at the Treasury Department, I and other members of the committee and conference relied heavily on Mark's intricate knowledge of tax policy as we crafted this legislation.

He worked very hard to help me advance priorities in this legislation including provisions benefiting small businesses, farmers, and ranchers. Thanks in no small part to his efforts, we successfully delivered a tax reform bill that will work for them. Time spent at the office is time away from family. I am grateful to both him and his family for his efforts.

I would also like to thank my legislative director, Jessica McBride, and my staff director, Brendon Plack. Brendon is a native of Madison,SD, and has been with my office for over 12 years. Jessica is a native of Miller, SD, and has been with my office for 8 years. Their work, advice, and counsel were invaluable as we moved this bill across the finish line.

I would also like to recognize a few other staff members for their hard work: Jay Khosla, Mark Prater, Jeff Wrase, Nick Wyatt, Matt Hoffman, Tony Coughlan, Eric Oman, Jen Acuna, Marty Pippins, Alex Monie, Preston Rutledge, Bryan Hickman, Brendan Dunn, and Monica Popp.

I would also like to recognize Senator Toomey's tax staff member, Randy Herdon, Senator Portman's tax staffer, Zach Rudisill, and Senator Scott's tax staffer, Shay Hawkins.

I know many of them over the last few months were running on very little sleep and perhaps missing important events at home with family and friends in order to be here at work. Nevertheless, they were patient, thoughtful, and tireless in their efforts because they knew the work was important and the impact would be significant.

We have all benefited from their wise counsel and have a better product for it.

Early next year, this legislation is going to have a real impact on people's lives across this country. Their hard work and contributions helped make it possible. They all worked incredibly hard and should be very proud of the work you have done on behalf of the American people.

I thank them for their service, and congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. President, relief for Americans is on the way. This evening, we will vote on the first comprehensive overhaul of our Tax Code since 1986. In 1986, I was a young Senate staffer. I watched as that tax bill passed on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I was a 25-year- old staffer back then.

In a couple of weeks, my wife and I will welcome our third grandchild into the world, so it seems only fitting, after 30 years, that we go about the business of reforming the Tax Code because a lot has changed in this country. A lot has changed in this country in the past 30 years, but the one thing that hasn't changed is the Tax Code. Our Tax Code needs to be updated and modernized to reflect the times in which we live.

Since President Reagan signed the last overhaul into law, our Tax Code has ballooned into an unwieldy, complex maze that costs American taxpayers an incredible amount of time and money and acts as a drag on economic growth and job creation.

I will say that when I was elected to the Senate, I came here, as most of us do, wanting to do big things. We want to do consequential things. We want to do things that will impact the American people in a beneficial and a positive way, and that is certainly the case with tax reform. I sought to get on the Senate Finance Committee for that reason. The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over tax, trade, healthcare, and issues that really impact and affect the American people's everyday lives.

In 2011, I had the good fortune of getting on the committee, and ever since that time we have been working aggressively, planning for this very day. The suggestion by our colleagues on the other side that somehow this cropped up all of a sudden, overnight, is absolutely inconsistent with the facts. Since I got on the Finance Committee in 2011, we have had no fewer than 70 hearings on tax reform and tax- related issues.

In 2015, the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch, created five working groups. I was fortunate enough to chair one of those working groups. They were bipartisan, and they were tasked with looking at all aspects of the Tax Code, broken down into five different sections, and making recommendations for tax reform. We went about that in a very diligent way. We spent weeks and months developing ideas, reported those recommendations to the full committee, and those recommendations today serve as the foundation for the legislation we are considering. That was a bipartisan process, and the Democrats participated in that. A lot of the suggestions are bipartisan ideas. The foundation for this legislation frankly, in many respects, originated with those working groups that were worked upon by both Republicans and Democrats. So we stand here today with a piece of legislation that has a lot of bipartisan substance in it, even though the Democrats have refused to participate in the process.

We started out with two major goals on tax reform. One was to put more money in the pockets of hard-working Americans and to create a tax code that would foster economic growth and make American companies competitive again in the global marketplace. Those are the two goals. The bill before us today--the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--succeeds on both fronts.

The bill provides immediate, direct relief for hard-working Americans, starting next month. It lowers tax rates for Americans in every income bracket. It nearly doubles the standard deduction, simplifying the code, meaning that fewer people will have to itemize. Across the country, it varies State by State, but, on average, less than one-third of the people across the country itemize today. Well, this will reduce that number even further. Less than 10 percent of the people in this country will have to itemize because of the doubling--or near doubling--of the standard deduction. It doubles the child tax credit and significantly increases the refundable portion of the credit, which will provide important additional help for low-income families, and it maintains the earned-income tax credit.

All of this means that American families are going to see a significant drop in their tax bills for next year. Just as a case in point, a family of four with a combined annual income of $73,000 per year will see a tax cut of over $2,000, and that represents a 58- percent reduction over what they are paying today under current law. If you are a single parent with one child and have an income of $41,000, you are going to see a $1,300 reduction in your taxes, which represents a 73-percent reduction over what you are paying today under current law.

So the idea, as has been advanced by the other side, that somehow middle-income taxpayers don't benefit from this is absolutely false. It is inaccurate because these are objective facts. A doubling of the standard deduction, a doubling of the child tax credit, and a reduction in rates mean that people in all income groups are going to see significant tax relief. Just to put a fine point on that, this is based on the latest analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. They assess and look at how these proposals will translate in terms of income groups and who gets impacted by that.

I want to point out that if you look at income by level here-- different groups and their incomes--as you can see, every income group receives a significant tax cut. In fact, lower income Americans receive the largest tax cuts, and that, again, is according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The point made earlier by my colleague from the other side was that somehow this was going to be a huge tax shift in terms of who is going to pay taxes after all this is said and done. Well, if you look at the tax burden--and by that I mean who pays taxes in this country, the share of taxes currently borne by each different income category--as you see from this chart, which is broken down by quadrant, 25 percent of the filers are in this category, 25 percent in this category, and 25 percent with $50,000 to $100,000 in income, and then the final quadrant of 25 percent is those making $100,000 and above. Well, if you look at those in the lower income categories--and this is according to the Joint Committee on Taxation--their share of the tax burden relative to what it is today is actually the same or lower. So those in lower income categories, those making $20,000 to $50,000 a year--and that represents about 25 percent of filers today-- pay 4.3 percent of total taxes in this country. After implementation of the bill, they will pay 4.1 percent of total taxes in this country. Their overall tax burden will have decreased after passage of this legislation.

If you take the next category, from $50,000 to $100,000, they pay today, under current law, 16.9 percent of the total tax burden in this country. After this legislation has passed, they will be paying 16.9 percent of the total tax burden in this country.

What about those making $100,000 a year and more, which represents about 25 percent of all filers? Well, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, on which these distribution tables are based, those in that income category who are paying today 78.7 percent of all the taxes in this country--after this is passed, they will pay 79.1 percent. So their overall tax burden actually goes up after this legislation is passed and enacted into law.

Interestingly enough, this is the most recent analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. This is the distribution table that they just put out. The category that has the biggest increase in terms of overall tax burden is those making a million dollars a year and more. Today they pay 19.3 percent of all the tax burden, all the tax liability in this country. After this is all said and done, they will pay 19.8 percent. So their taxes--those with a million and more--are going up under this legislation.

So this idea--they keep saying it on the other side, but just because they keep saying it doesn't make it true. The facts tell a completely different story. These are the facts. Again, I have come back to the point I made earlier; that is, let's put it into language that people in this country understand. When they do their taxes, they are going to see a doubling of the standard deduction and they are going to see a doubling of the child tax credit. If you are a family with kids in this country, that means that for every child you have, instead of getting a $1,000 child tax credit, you will get a $2,000 child tax credit. Couple that with the lower rates--and the marginal rates are going to be a 10- percent rate, a 12-percent rate--and where those kick in at different brackets, you are going to see a significant reduction in taxes across all income groups. That is just the reality. I think it is important that we at least, as we are talking about this subject, talk about it in terms of the facts.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also preserves elements of the current Tax Code that have been working for Americans. Under this bill, homeowners and those aspiring to own a home will still be able to deduct their mortgage interest if they itemize on their taxes. Individuals who donate to charities, to churches, and educational institutions will still be able to claim those contributions as an itemized deduction. Working Americans will retain all the current options for saving for retirement, from individual retirement accounts to the various types of employer-provided retirement plans, like 401(k)s.

This bill also provides families with permanent relief from ObamaCare's burdensome individual mandate, which is a tax on lower income Americans. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Americans will no longer be required to buy health insurance that they don't want and can't afford or face significant financial penalties, which today disproportionately fall on those who make less than $50,000 a year.

This bill also restores the deduction for major medical expenses to where it was before ObamaCare. For this year and next, Americans facing the burden of significant medical expenses will once again be able to deduct any expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. I hope that eventually we will be able to make that change permanent.

That is not all this is going to do. This is not just going to help Americans now; it is going to help them for the long term. It is going to give them access to the kinds of jobs, wages, and opportunities that will set them up for a secure future. How does it go about doing that? By rebuilding our broken Tax Code into a modern tax system designed for a 21st-century economy.

In order for individual Americans to thrive, American businesses need to thrive. Thriving businesses expand. They hire new workers. They can afford to offer those workers higher wages. But our current Tax Code has not been helping businesses thrive. On the contrary, it has been strangling businesses large and small with high tax rates and provisions that discourage growth and drive those good-paying jobs overseas. Plus, our outdated tax structure has left American businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.

This legislation changes all of that. This bill lowers tax rates across the board for small and medium-size businesses, farms, and ranches. It provides a 20-percent deduction on passthrough income, reducing the top effective tax rate on this income to no more than 29.6 percent. It permits businesses with gross receipts of up to $25 million to use the cash method of accounting and to expense their inventory costs. It allows businesses to expense new investments in machinery, equipment, and building improvements. And it expands the amount of startup and organizational expenses that new businesses can write off up front, freeing up cash flow to get the business up and running.

Accelerating businesses' ability to recover the money they invested in things like property, equipment, and inventory will encourage new business growth and help existing businesses--including farms and ranches--expand their operations, create new jobs, and grow the economy.

The bill also helps family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches by providing substantial relief from the death tax. I would have preferred to eliminate what I think is a confiscatory tax once and for all. But in this legislation, we double the current exemption to over $11 million, and by doing that, this bill will take a vast majority of family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches out of the tax's crosshairs. Too many of these businesses have wasted tens of thousands of dollars a year on costly estate planning simply to avoid the death tax and preserve that family business for another generation. That is money that these individuals would rather be investing in their businesses and their workers. This legislation allows these businesses to save critical capital for their businesses instead of forcing them to spend it to protect themselves from the heavy hand of the government.

In addition to improving the playing field for small businesses, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will boost our economy by lowering the tax rate for larger businesses. Right now, America's global businesses pay the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. By reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent, this bill will allow American businesses to compete and win in the global economy. Just as important, this bill brings the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century by replacing our outdated worldwide tax system with a territorial tax system so that American businesses are not operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors.

We haven't talked a lot about this, but one of the most important reforms in this bill is the changes we make to

the international tax system. This bill also eliminates the incentives in our current Tax Code that encouraged companies to shift jobs, profits, and manufacturing plants overseas. This bill makes it easier for American businesses to bring home foreign earnings to invest in growing jobs and paychecks in our local communities here in America.

Lowering the corporate tax rate and transitioning to a territorial tax system will boost wages, jobs, and opportunities for American workers employed by our Nation's global companies. It will also increase wages, jobs, and opportunities for workers at the countless small and medium-sized businesses throughout our country that make up the supply chain for America's global companies. That is a resounding win for American workers and businesses and for our economy overall.

As I said earlier, this bill is the product of literally years of work by Members of both parties. I am excited to be here as we get an opportunity to take this bill across the finish line later today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee intern Connor Barrett. Connor hails from Bend, OR, and is an aspiring law student.

While interning for the Commerce Committee, Connor assisted the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. He is a dedicated worker who was committed to getting the most out of his internship. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Connor for all of the fine work he did for the committee and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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

Mr. President, for more than two decades, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Republican and Democratic Congresses, the United States pursued a bipartisan light-touch approach to internet regulation. The internet as we know it today flourished under this light-touch approach, much to the benefit of American consumers and the domestic economy. It also made America the world leader in internet technology and positioned us to continue that leadership in the years to come.

In 2002, broadband internet was classified by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, our Nation's communications regulator, as an information service under title I of the Communications Act. This classification exempted the internet from burdensome regulations contained in title II of the Communications Act, which were designed in the Depression era for the old telephone monopolies.

Under the Obama administration, we saw repeated attempts to bring the internet under greater government control. Finally, in 2015, at the explicit direction of President Obama, the FCC did as it was told and reclassified broadband internet access service as a title II service, subjecting broadband internet to onerous common carrier rules and opening the door to further regulation, including price regulation. Not surprisingly, with heavier regulation came a decline in broadband investment. Indeed, we have seen private investment in broadband infrastructure decline over the past 2 years. This decline should not be mistaken as a sign that broadband infrastructure is not needed. In fact, the opposite is true, as there are still 34 million Americans who lack access to broadband services at home.

In States like my home State of South Dakota, encouraging broadband deployment continues to be critical to ensuring that rural areas have the same economic opportunity as their urban counterparts. The Federal Government should not be putting up barriers to broadband deployment; it should be removing them. Congress and the FCC need to ensure regulatory framework is in place that protects consumers but that doesn't stand in the way of investment and innovation.

Prior to the FCC's 2015 actions to bring broadband under title II, and for more than a decade under the light-touch regulatory framework of title I, we saw unprecedented growth that revolutionized our daily lives and allowed us to stay better connected with our loved ones. The internet created new jobs and expanded opportunities for education and commerce. It became the greatest engine of innovation for our times.

Despite the fearmongering and doomsday rhetoric that continues to plague this debate, when the FCC moves forward and restores the internet to its pre-2015 regulatory status, the internet will continue to thrive and serve as an engine for future economic growth.

I commend Chairman Pai at the FCC and the entire Commission for all the hard work over the last year that has gotten us to this point. I also commend Chairman Pai for his commitment to transparency throughout this process. For the first time in the history of the Commission, under Chairman Pai's leadership, the public was able to view the Restoring Internet Freedom item 3 weeks prior to the FCC's vote. That is true of all documents to be considered by the Commission--a major departure from the previous administration's actions, which were often not made public until the very last minute. As a result of Chairman Pai's commitment to transparency, the public has the benefit of not only viewing the item but also participating in the process.

Despite attempts by those more interested in politicizing the issue and distracting from this debate, this item resulted in the most well informed and most exhaustive record of comments ever submitted to the FCC. The FCC is now well positioned to move forward to ensure that the internet is open and free. Regrettably, however, debate doesn't end there. The outcry from opponents of the FCC's proposal is that the internet will fall apart without adequate consumer protections.

There is obviously immense passion that follows the issue of net neutrality. Americans care deeply about preserving a free and open internet, as do I and so many of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate on both sides of the aisle.

As I have stated repeatedly and I will say again today, congressional action is the only way to solve the endless back-and-forth on net neutrality rules that we have seen over the past several years. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and those who claim to support net neutrality rules want to enshrine protections for consumers with the backing of the law, I call on them today to join me in discussing legislation that would do just that. While we are not going to agree on everything, I believe there is much room for compromise.

Many of us in Congress already agree on many of the principles of net neutrality. True supporters of an open internet should be demanding such legislative protections today, not posturing while waiting for years during protracted legal proceedings or waiting for the political winds to shift.

If Republicans and Democrats have the political support to work together on such a compromise, we can enact a regulatory framework that will stand the test of time. I have stood willing to work with any and all supporters of net neutrality protections for many years now, and I continue to stand ready today.

It is time for Congress to settle this debate, and I welcome discussion on ways to ensure a free and open internet for decades to come.