Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support President Biden's nominee to be Secretary of Commerce, the Governor of Rhode Island, Gina Raimondo.

Many people know that Governor Raimondo was the first woman to serve in that position in her State, and she has made tremendous impacts to that State at a time when it needed important leadership. So we are very excited that the President has nominated her for this position and that she will put those same skill sets to work here in Washington.

The mission of the Department of Commerce, at least according to its website, is to foster, promote, and develop foreign and domestic commerce. Well, I can tell you that she is going to inherit a big challenge because obviously our domestic economy is still reeling from the impacts of COVID-19, and certainly she needs to think about the continuing transition to a digital economy in an information age. The foreign economy that she also will be charged with trying to help and impact as it relates to the United States is certainly plagued by the same pandemic and the impacts of that.

So we are looking for someone who can come in and help, with private sector experience, to really move the agenda of this administration forward. For me, Governor Raimondo's private sector experience really means a lot. She knows how to invest in new technologies and things that are going to help us grow jobs for the future, and she knows how to match up a workforce with those job opportunities that are also so critical as we move forward on many, many different policy issues that are going to usher in change.

As Governor, she invested in workforce training and matching workers with relevant small business experience, called her Rhode Island job initiative. The program served more than 1,700 employers and 11,000 people throughout the State. She was able to send her State's unemployment rates tumbling to a 30-year low simply by doing a really focused job of matching workforce training to the needs of those industries that were growing in her State. So I certainly appreciate the fact that she has that private sector experience in knowing where to invest and bringing people together, and she certainly created successful programs on matching the workforce for tomorrow.

But make no mistake, the Department of Commerce is going to have a very challenging role as we try to deal with the impacts of COVID-19. One of the most important responsibilities, I believe, will be dealing with the sectors most hard hit by the COVID pandemic.

I am glad that Governor Raimondo is a Governor of a coastal State because one of the most impacted industries, as we have seen, is the seafood industry, which has been affected greatly by COVID-19 since early January 2020 when the lockdowns in China and around the world impacted the seafood sector. U.S. seafood exports to China dropped by 31 percent by January of 2020 and 40 percent by February of 2020. Lobster, Dungeness crab, shellfish--everything was experiencing severe declines, and west coast fisheries have seen as much as a 40-percent drop in revenue.

Sustainable fisheries are important economic drivers in coastal communities. I know that Governor Raimondo gets that. She understands that commercial fishermen and the impacts they have will impact not just seafood processors, shipbuilding, and trade, but also our restaurant economy. Marine anglers took in more than 194 million fishing trips, which fueled our outdoor recreation and tourism economy.

So I am glad that Governor Raimondo, from a coastal State, is going to come to oversee some of those key functions at the Department of Commerce, particularly at NOAA, and harness the incredible data and information that help us manage these economies, that keep them safe and keep them focused on science. I know she understands that, as Secretary, she can use those good scientific Agencies within the Department of Commerce to better understand the impacts of climate and the impacts of COVID and what we can do.

We know in the State of Washington that just a little bit of science done at

the University of Washington helped us immensely in saving our shellfish industry. We now need to do more for fisheries across the United States. We need to invest in things that I call salmon infrastructure to keep--as we continue to grow our economy and continue to move forward on infrastructure, that we are also keeping ways to return salmon.

I think this is one of the most important things Governor Raimondo can do as Secretary of Commerce--restore the respect for the scientific process, the scientific community, and the important issues that are going to be at the heart of how our coastal economies are impacted by climate.

I have invited Governor Raimondo to take one of her first trips to the State of Washington to see exactly how our State has dealt with these fishery issues. I know that the Presiding Officer from California knows how important the seafood industry is and the impacts to our coastal communities because of climate as well. We need a leader in the Department of Commerce who is going to help us mitigate and adapt to those impacts.

I am also counting on Governor Raimondo to help us with our export economy, everything from our ports to farmers to aerospace. Exports mean jobs, and about one in four jobs in the State of Washington is related to trade.

Frankly, I think she is a departure from the last President and the last Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross. I think he and the President spent a lot more time shaking their fists at the world community than engaging them on policies that were really going to open up markets and help us move forward with getting our products in the door.

Ninety-six percent of the world's customers live outside of the United States, and prior to the COVID pandemic, half of the world's population had reached middle class. That means that is a big market, almost 4 billion people. U.S. exporters need to be able to reach those markets and to grow the U.S. economy and grow U.S. jobs.

We need to work with our allies, like Europe and Japan, to meet the real challenges we face from China. We need to expand U.S. exports in other fast-growing markets around Asia and South America and around the world. The Department of Commerce has a key role in promoting those exports and helping our companies enter new markets, and U.S. commercial service officials are on the frontlines of these issues around the globe.

I know Governor Raimondo understands the importance of this export market, and she understands that the Department of Commerce can play a very big role in it. I hope that she will get to work soon on working within the Biden administration to make this a big priority.

I also want to say that I know she is going to, on other science Agencies within the Department of Commerce, play a critical role, everything from the National Institute of Science and Technology--a small Agency that doesn't get a lot of attention, but it is very consensus-based on standards and fostering growth in a number of industries that are so important to communications and manufacturing and public safety.

So I hope that she will use, again, her private sector experience in knowing where to invest in new technologies to help us continue to grow economies like the space economy that we have in the State of Washington. We are very proud that, as commercial space travel has started to be a major focus of the private sector, it has grown many businesses and many jobs in our State in that area, and we want to see it continue to grow.

But we need Governor Raimondo's leadership on the important policies that divide us on these issues. The U.S.-EU Privacy Shield agreement is such a negotiation. I know my colleague Senator Wicker, who has been very involved in these discussions and negotiations, knows exactly how important digital trade is, and Commerce is leading up these talks to resolve these disputes.

We must ensure the continued free flow of commercial data between the United States and Europe. A lot is at stake. The U.S. and EU digital trade is worth more than $300 billion annually and includes more than $218 billion in U.S. exports to Europe. Every business that exports or imports or has a presence in investment in the United States or Europe will face difficulties if we don't resolve these issues and barriers to cross-border data transfer.

So all of this is very big risk, and we want Governor Raimondo to get to work on this very quickly and help resolve these issues.

The free flow of data between the United States and Europe is critical to 5,000 tech companies in my State and more than $2.8 billion of digital exports in our economy. So I am pretty sure that this is the same--as I said to the Presiding Officer, I know he gets how important digital trade is to the State of California and would like to see these issues addressed as well.

So these are very big challenges for the Department of Commerce and the next Commerce Secretary to basically make sure that the impacts of COVID are dealt with in our economy and to usher in a new era of an information age by making the right investments and depending on science to help our key coastal communities that also have been greatly impacted, using and harnessing the aspects of NOAA and really bringing in the type of leadership we need at the Department of Commerce to resolve our problems as a new digital age emerges here on an international basis and continue to allow our economy to grow. I know she is the right choice. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have 4 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 Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

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, March 2, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, every President swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Every President has a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law and to preserve our democratic system. No one is above the law, not even a President.

President Trump violated his oath. He promulgated lies about the election, used his office to try to interfere with election officials doing their job, and failed to protect our Capitol from a mob that clearly intended to cause physical harm to elected officials and to stop the lawful certification of election results.

For months, President Trump used his platform as President--at rallies, on Twitter, and in press interviews--to spread disinformation, making unsubstantiated and false claims about voting by mail, vote rigging, and fraud in counting ballots. President Trump pressured State and local officials across the country to reject election results without evidence. He called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to find the votes he needed to win the State. Even after President Trump lost 61 election-related cases in State and Federal courts, he continued to insist the election was stolen from him. In the process, President Trump sowed doubt and provoked his supporters.

President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, DC, on January 6. They included known domestic violent extremists, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other White supremacists and far-right militia groups. Federal law enforcement had warned about the threat of violence from armed members of these groups. Nevertheless, President Trump urged his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and to fight and told them they will ``never take back our country with weakness.'' He said he would march with them.

Instead of trying to stop them, President Trump continued to support actions by the insurrectionists even after they breached the Capitol Building, overwhelmed and unleashed violence against law enforcement, and put at risk the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress, Capitol Police officers, and staff members. Four insurrectionists died. In all, 140 law enforcement personnel were injured and 1 police officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, was killed. Two more police officers later died as a result of the insurrection.

Many of the insurrectionists said they were there at the direction of President Trump. And the President did not call on his followers to stand down or send reinforcements to help the overwhelmed law enforcement at the Capitol. Instead, we know from a statement from Washington Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler entered into the trial record that President Trump refused to help bring an end to the insurrection even after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy urged him to act.

In this moment and in the weeks and months leading up to the insurrection, President Trump violated his duty to the Constitution and his oath of office. There must be accountability. Without accountability, we are setting a dangerous precedent--one that says that the President is above the law and did not uphold his oath to ensure the peaceful transfer of power.

It is also important to recognize that the events that unfolded on January 6 did not occur in isolation. They were the culmination of years of President Trump stoking the flames of racial tension and division, as the House impeachment managers have concisely laid out.

Throughout President Trump's time in office, hate crimes rose to levels not seen in over a decade. The rise in domestic violent extremism has been publicly acknowledged by President Trump's own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who identified it as the most severe threat to the homeland. Director Wray has testified that racially-motivated violent extremists make up the largest aspect of domestic violent extremist cases, often involving militia groups, such as the ones who were present during the January 6th insurrection.

In the Northwest we have faced threats from racially-motived extremists and armed anti-government militia groups for decades, including the siege of Ruby Ridge, ID, in 1992, the Aryan Nations compound near Hayden Lake, ID, and the attempted bombing of Spokane's Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial march in 2011. Groups that were among the insurrectionists on January 6, including the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers, all have a significant presence in my State. In the last 4 years, their activity has been on the rise. Following the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, they threatened State capitals around our country, including in my State. An armed mob breached the gates outside of the Governor's mansion in Olympia, surrounding Governor Inslee's residence on the capitol complex while his family was inside. This wasn't the first time, however, that these armed extremist groups have showed up to demonstrations in my State.

As this Senate trial has clearly shown, President Trump has repeatedly inflamed these groups and others. He encouraged violence at his rallies, called White nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville ``very fine people,'' refused to clearly condemn White supremacy during a Presidential debate, told the Proud Boys hate group to ``stand back and stand by,'' and told the January 6th insurrectionists that he ``loves them and they are very special'' after they had already laid siege to our Capitol and committed heinous acts of violence. That encouragement has had consequences, as we saw in Charlottesville and on January 6.

President Trump's responsibility is clear. He violated his oath of office and tried to overturn the results of the election. Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy. Generations of Americans gave their lives for our freedom, for our right to vote, and for the peaceful transfer of power. I voted to hold President Trump accountable for committing a high crime against our governmental system and to safeguard the future of democracy in the United States of America.

Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 117th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support the budget resolution and to underscore the need for us to keep moving forward on helping the American people during this pandemic.

It is clear to me from the people of the Northwest that we have to do more to help them, whether it is vaccines, more PPE equipment, helping our small businesses continuing to move through this process. It means helping to also understand individuals most hard-hit by the pandemic and sectors of our economy most hard-hit. It means helping to put kids back into school. It means making sure that we fund the E-rate Program and do more on broadband. And it also means we have to avoid more layoffs, if possible, to help make sure Americans have jobs to pay the bills at home.

I hope that we can find a bipartisan compromise and move forward on these. There are issues that we have been able to do in the past two COVID packages to get bipartisan support. I hope that our colleagues will continue to look for those paths, but we have to keep helping the American people within the Congress's jurisdiction.

I know some of my colleagues from the committee are going to come out here and talk today. We have really focused on the issues of our transportation sector and how hard-hit our transportation sector has been.

I know that people see today's headlines even about airlines that are issuing furlough notices as part of their requirement to do so. But when we have these furlough notices, basically, what you are doing is you are disrupting our transportation delivery system. People who end up getting furloughed end up having to set retraining and reestablish before they can go back to the sector.

We want to keep our transportation sector moving because, obviously, the movement of goods and services of people is critical to delivering on the pandemic and to helping our economy not suffer even greater economic impact.

We have seen how important the transportation sector is. We have seen even recently out in the West how our dockworkers, the ILWU and others, have suffered major infection rates of COVID, and this now starts to threaten our delivery of goods and products through those systems. We need to do more to get them vaccines and to make sure that we are moving Americans' products through our ports as well.

I want to talk about the fact that the aviation sector represents 5 percent of our GDP. That is 11 million jobs and $1.6 trillion in economic activity. The aviation sector is important to us, overall, and continuing to maintain our competitiveness there and to grow the economy of the future is very critical. That is why we continue to work for and look for ways to keep the aviation system going during the pandemic and why we are continuing to move the support for airlines in this package. Congress has twice acted to provide critical relief to airline workers, pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, and we will continue to do so as part of this budget reconciliation.

As I mentioned, avoiding furloughs keeps highly skilled pilots and crew members trained and ready to go as part of the transportation sector.

As we have seen with this economy, we are now--I think the sector is back to almost 40 percent of where it was prior to the pandemic. Helping to preserve that commerce and trade has helped our economy and our U.S. airports, which also have been impacted by this and have had continued economic losses, and we want to help them with moving forward on this plan.

We also want to work on a bipartisan basis to do more to help aviation manufacturing that has been greatly impacted by this. The aviation aerospace sector has lost so many jobs, and there are hundreds of thousands more at risk.

I know my colleague from Kansas and my colleague from Virginia, Senators Moran and Warner, have been working on a proposal. We certainly want to continue to work on a bipartisan basis to make sure that as much of the aviation workforce can keep going, so as we return to the very competitive environment of aviation, we have a workforce that is skilled there to do it.

We also have to do more to help Amtrak. The revenues of ridership dropped 97 percent compared to the 2019 ridership, and Amtrak has been forced to furlough over 2,000 employees. It has had to cut essential services on long-distance and State routes. Trust me. My colleagues from Montana, Senator Tester and Senator Daines, have brought these issues up. Without additional relief, essential services that connect rural communities will be cut further. I can tell you, in Montana,

where people go to see Glacier National Park and the wonders of that great State, having this essential service is key.

We don't want do more damage to the economy, as we continue to deal with the pandemic, by underinvesting in the infrastructure that has to keep operating to help our economy. So I am going to continue to work with our colleague Senator Wicker in his efforts on Amtrak and continue to move forward.

Also, I know of the impact of transportation on the State budget that we have seen. In the State of Washington, for example, there is a whole list of projects that is now going to be delayed--projects that are not finished, are not done--just because of the loss of revenue from ridership and transportation. So our transportation infrastructure needs to be kept going, and the workforce that keeps it going needs to be supported. This is going to be a key aspect of the next budget reconciliation package and what we are going to work on.

I hope our colleagues can understand how important this is to our economy and how important it is to the men and women who serve in the transportation sector. If I could just say, there are so many people in the transportation sector that just went and did their jobs. We have lost lives in aviation. We have lost lives in transit. We have lost lives with dockworkers. People have just showed up to continue to do their jobs, so we need to do better by passing this package and giving them support, more vaccines, more equipment, and more support in funding so we can keep Americans working in jobs but working safely. That is what this next package will be about.

I yield to my colleagues who are going to talk about other priorities within this particular sector. I see my colleague from New Mexico on the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support the nomination of Pete Buttigieg to be Secretary of Transportation.

We all know the nominee as Mayor Pete--a man who basically came on to the national stage as a Midwest mayor who had lots of enthusiasm for making investments in America's future. So today we are considering his nomination to be Secretary of Transportation at a time when we need a lot of work done on transportation. In my opinion, he is a young, energetic mayor who is going to help us usher in a new era of transportation. That means there is going to be a lot of bipartisan dialogue about how we get there. But this job should not be underestimated in terms of the importance of the transportation sector and the investments for the future that we need.

Our transportation system serves as a backbone of our economy, and when it is not doing well, the consequential impact of that affects our economy. It affects how our businesses compete in a global economy. It affects how people get to and from work, and it affects their home life as well. So it is a big job that we have, and I know that this mayor and future Secretary of Transportation understands how big this challenge is.

We have underinvested in our infrastructure for decades. In the past 10 years alone, we have underfunded our infrastructure needs by $1.5 trillion. The American Society of Engineers estimates that we need to invest $5.6 trillion in our infrastructure over the next two decades, or the United States stands to lose about $10.3 trillion in GDP. I know this because my State knows this. I think the Presiding Officer knows this as well. If the transportation infrastructure doesn't work, goods and services don't get through your ports, they don't get to their destination, and businesses choose other vehicles or other avenues for the products to be delivered. America needs to be competitive.

The American public also knows that poor infrastructure and the problems they see in their communities have to be addressed, whether that is concrete crumbling off of bridges, delayed trains, buses, congestion, railroads, or any of many issues. Just this week, a highway in California slid into the ocean, disrupting traffic along the famous Highway 1, and this could be a delay for months. I know, again, the Presiding Officer understands this as well as the State of Washington. Mother Nature doesn't always comply with our transportation needs.

So while these investments and numbers may seem huge to people, it is what this investment will enable that we need to keep focused on. We need to focus on the fact that the United States makes and grows things, and we need to get them to their destinations. We need people be able to get to their places of employment. So we need someone at the Department of Transportation who is enthusiastic about taking on these challenges and helping President Biden administer a new era of transportation and the challenges that we face.

Mayor Buttigieg--a Harvard graduate, Rhodes Scholar, former U.S. Reservist who I believe served in Afghanistan--also understands the challenges of smalltown mayors and the impacts that transportation systems can have. He knows the challenges we now face because of COVID- 19, that there is a new burden on our transportation system because of the impact of lost revenue.

State departments of transportation estimate $50 billion in lost revenues over the next 5 years. Airports have lost $23 billion because of people no longer flying. Transit agencies will have lost an estimated $50 billion by the end of 2021. These losses will continue to compound until we find the best way to protect our transportation workers, our travelers, and to continue to help with personal protective equipment, testing, vaccines, and clear, health-based protocols to help return safety to our transportation system and to build public confidence. That is one of the reasons why we are fighting so hard for this next package of investments.

President Biden took decisive action by mandating that people wear masks, which is a giant step forward in our transportation system. I think there is more we can do, and hopefully our colleagues can work together on that.

The long-term revenue outlet for transportation also is changing, and so it will be a long time before its recovery.

So I believe that Mayor Pete Buttigieg is the right choice for this job because he was mayor of South Bend. He dealt with infrastructure where the rubber meets the road--managing State, Federal, and local resources to help build infrastructure in his community.

He also helped facilitate public-private partnerships to make the dollars go farther, an important model for future investments in transportation. One of those projects, the South Shore double-track project, whose full funding grant agreement was signed earlier this month, is like many other State and local projects. The South Shore double track demanded impressive coordination between Federal, State, and local governments to bring it to fruition.

Mayor Buttigieg's Smart Streets Initiative also shows he knows how to operate and succeed in the current environment and will be able to help communities around the country replicate the success he had in South Bend.

He won't be the first mayor to be the Secretary of Transportation, but I think we can say that when you have a mayor in that job, they are going to pay attention to local transportation infrastructure investments to help our communities continue to grow and be competitive.

We have a major opportunity, I believe, to now deliver on the infrastructure needs of many of those communities. We should start immediately by talking about infrastructure packages and working on a transportation infrastructure plan for the 21st century because it is clear we have opportunities this year, with the surface transportation programs expiring in September.

Communities everywhere are demanding that we help work on these important issues for their communities, but Mayor Buttigieg will also be called on to think about the new era of transportation and how we maintain ou competitiveness. He will have to think about issues of ensuring safety with new autonomous vehicle technologies and unmanned aircraft. He will have to promote stronger emission standards for automobiles, aviation, and the maritime industry. He will have to support the continued growth of electric vehicle infrastructure. He will have to make big investments in game-changing projects that will help us move freight more cost-effectively through our Nation. People will want to know and understand what our reliable passenger rail, transit systems, roads, and investments in bridges are going to be for the future.

So all of this is a big challenge, but I know that this nominee is up to that challenge. He did well at the committee in making sure that people understood that he believes that those challenges need to be addressed in order for America to continue to move forward.

From my perspective, just in the State of Washington, before COVID had really hit, we saw 78 hours per year of delayed traffic; that is, the average commuter spent 78 hours in delayed traffic. A recent study in my State estimated that Washingtonians lost more than $7.4 billion each year in lost time

and wasted fuel due to congestion, deteriorated roads, and safety problems. As America starts to head back to the office, no one wants to spend time back in that world of congestion, and so we need to make critical investments.

People in Puget Sound know that we need to fix the West Seattle Bridge. They know in Southwest Washington that the Columbia River needs a new bridge across I-5. In Eastern Washington, they know that we need a north-south corridor. In Everett, they know that the trestle needs replacement if goods from Eastern Washington are going to get to the Port of Everett and out the door.

All of these things are investments, and with them come the structures of things like at-grade crossings, passenger rail systems, and safety that are huge, I believe, infrastructure investments that have not been quite appreciated. I was very pleased to get Mr. Buttigieg's commitment during our session with him that these things-- at-grade crossings, port competitiveness, and moving products safely-- should be a big priority for the future.

The Lander Street project in Seattle, which was an investment of the new freight program, is just a few blocks, but literally, congestion for hours had stopped traffic from getting from I-5 to the Port of Seattle. The Lander Street project in a lot of ways represents what it really is: a bridge to the future, a bridge to get people moving where they need to go, and the right investment, being competitive for the future. We are going to face many more delays if America doesn't remain competitive.

So I look forward to working with Mr. Buttigieg on all of these issues. He also, during the committee hearing process, committed that he will continue to work with Senator Wicker and me on important issues of aviation safety. He committed to us that he understood that aviation safety and the FAA need to continue to make reforms. I believe that if you want to be the leaders in aviation, you have to be the leaders in aviation safety. I think Mayor Buttigieg understands that will be a very big job of the Department of Transportation as well.

I enthusiastically support this nominee. I look forward to the type of focus he can give to the Department of Transportation. This area of our government right now needs to address the COVID crisis. It needs to help us plan for a better transportation system of the future. It needs to understand that this transportation infrastructure and investment in these changes in these sectors--cars, planes, and passenger systems are all very dynamic, changing industries, and so our competitiveness will be at stake as well.

So I encourage my colleagues to support this nominee. I am sure we will hear a lot of discussion from him and a lot of bipartisan effort to help get our transportation system fully funded.

I yield the floor

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleague, the Senator from Oregon, who has been a long proponent of a very strong internet economy and privacy rights. I very much appreciate his leadership on so many of these technology issues. He and I represent a very strong technology economy in the Pacific Northwest, and we want to fight to keep that innovation.

He and I actually held a summit in our adjoining communities just about the app economy. This was several years ago--probably 7 or 8 years ago

now. He and I worked together to formulate, with our colleges, Washington State University and Oregon, literally just the app economy.

I think about the applications we saw 7 years ago. Some of them were for hiking trails, some of them were for solutions for our law enforcement to have better information, and some of them were just pure business applications. I think about how much we have grown that app economy in the last 7 to 10 years and how much it will be impacted by an internet that is not an open internet and universal in giving people access to service. I say this because those new startups know more than anybody else that if they are not the big behemoth in the market and they are a new interest competing against an existing business or if they have a new idea and they don't have the clout to have fast internet speeds, they are not going to reach consumers; they are not going to reach their clients; and they are not going to have a business model that is successful.

So I thank Senator Wyden for his leadership for decades on these important issues. I thank my colleague Senator Markey for organizing us this morning to say one thing loud and clear: After 1 year, we already know what is happening on the internet. One thing the Senate can do is protect consumers from big cable companies from overcharging them. That is why we are out here to say that we should have a vote to protect consumers, to protect companies that produce 20 percent of our economy over 377,000 jobs in my State. I guarantee you I will be here this morning to articulate why an internet service needs to be protected. We know we have to fight back against companies that want to gouge consumers or suppress competition.

It has been 1 year since the FCC decided to turn back protections for the internet. We are here today because we know we have already seen the inklings of what is more to come--companies that are doing things such as slowing down speeds or charging consumers more. We know more than 20 million people stood up and told the FCC they want strong internet protections, and they do not want to see large-scale companies overcharging or gouging them.

I don't even know how we can talk about getting broadband service if there are not going to be strong rules on the internet that protect consumers from being overcharged. The truth is, we know today that the internet is a great economy for us. It is helping us to research. It is helping us in lifesaving healthcare. We had one of the FCC administrators out in the Northwest looking at healthcare applications, and they are phenomenal for helping everything from PTSD to looking at ways to deliver just-in-time healthcare for those who are in remote parts of our State.

We know the internet is a great equalizer. It is helping people from different backgrounds participate in the economy, and it is helping with economic empowerment, but innovative businesses in every small town and every city need to have an internet that is going to give them access to create jobs and move their local economies forward. Today, in the United States, three cable companies--just three cable companies-- have control of internet access for 70 percent of Americans, and 80 percent of rural Americans still only have one choice for high-speed broadband for their homes and businesses. We are not likely to get competition where the consumer can just say: You are artificially slowing me down and charging me too much; I am just going to the competition. That is not likely to happen. That is why we need a strong FCC approach to protecting an open internet and saying they shouldn't block, throttle, and manipulate internet access. Without these protections, Big Cable can move faster in charging more. So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to say it is time to hold these companies accountable and put consumers ahead of these big cable profits.

I can guarantee that the American people know better. Literally, it doesn't matter what political affiliation you have, the majority of Americans all oppose repealing protections that make for an open internet. They know it is time for us to protect consumers and that this is only going to get more complex as our economy depends more and more on an open internet.

As my colleague from Oregon has said, the Trump FCC has given a green light to companies, basically, to keep doing whatever they want and to continue to take more out of consumers' pockets.

Today, on the Senate floor, we have an opportunity. My colleague from Massachusetts, who has been as much a great leader on these issues and has been working to protect an open internet for decades, has an opportunity to say where we stand in protecting the American consumer. Just last year, a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate--49 Democrats and 3 Republicans--joined together to overturn the FCC's repealing of internet protections. We were here together to say we want the internet protected.

Now the House of Representatives has done its job. It has basically protected the internet and taken an initiative. It is time for Leader McConnell to put the big cable companies on notice and to allow debate on the Senate floor and hold them accountable so we can say we want an open internet, and this type of practice should be fought against.

I hope our colleagues will be given the opportunity for this debate, to look at why it is so important to protect consumers, the innovation economy, and a free and open internet.

Tomorrow there is an FCC hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, and I hope we will be able to ask these important questions about why cable companies are continuing to gouge consumers in many areas.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine for helping us coordinate this very important moment today, and I, too, want to recognize the presence of our former colleague, who is playing such a great role in helping us commemorate next year as such a very important time for us to recognize the important role of women's voices in American politics.

I join my colleagues today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Senate's passing of the 19th Amendment and to honor all the women who struggled hard and long to make sure our democracy included our voices, the voices of all women, all those women who saw the promise of the United States and fought for their place in it. Those women helped craft a more perfect union. For nearly a century, these women fought to be heard, and their efforts fundamentally transformed our democracy and our country.

I am very proud to represent a State with a long tradition of women activists and leaders. Today, I want to recognize two influential suffragists from my State--Emma Smith DeVoe and May Hutton. Both women were pioneers in the struggle to get the right to vote. In an era when women were given few opportunities, these two women refused to be held back. They instead paved a way for women to fully engage in the political process.

Tacoma resident Emma Smith DeVoe built the Washington Equal Suffrage Association and led the successful campaign to enshrine women's suffrage in Washington's State Constitution a full 10 years ahead of the ratification of the 19th Amendment. She helped win the right to vote for women in Idaho in 1896 and led campaigns in other States, speaking and organizing rallies and sit-ins, and she helped found the National Council of Women Voters to continue the nationwide suffrage movement and educate newly enfranchised women about politics across the country. Her efforts got her the nickname ``the Mother of Woman's Suffrage.''

May Hutton, the other activist from our State, overcame a very difficult childhood. She and her husband became successful entrepreneurs and devoted much of their self-made wealth to activism.

When they moved to Spokane from Idaho in 1906, May actually lost her right to vote in the process. She quickly set out to work to change that injustice and win the franchise for women in every State in the territory.

She wrote:

Women should vote because they have the intelligence to

vote. They should vote because it gives them

responsibilities, and responsibilities better fit women for

all conditions of life. Equality before the law gives women a

fair chance with men in a question of wages for the same

work.

There you go--a century ago, someone standing up for women to have the same wage in work, and that is the work we continue here today.

She continued:

In other words, the enfranchisement of women means a square

deal for all.

May stood tall for more than just women's rights; she proposed extending the franchise to all adults, regardless of sex, race, or color.

Washington's territorial legislature gave women the right to vote in 1883, but it was struck down by the courts. Because of the continuous efforts of Ms. DeVoe, Ms. Hutton, and so many others, women finally gained the franchise in Washington in 1910--a full decade before this right was guaranteed nationally. Emma Smith DeVoe and May Hutton paved the way for so many women. Washington State is proud of their work, and we are proud of their accomplishments.

As we honor them today, we must also recognize that the struggle for equal rights is still not over. We have more to do. We know that our country is stronger, more representative, and more successful when we include women at every table and in every boardroom and at every ballot box and in every discussion in our families and in our communities, but we need to be reminded of the example of Emma and May so that other suffragists know that we remember their work and are grateful for it and that we are going to continue the fight to get equal access and equal representation in all issues in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the introduction of Senate legislation to help us deal with the affordable housing crisis in the United States of America.

Many of my colleagues know how pervasive this problem is. Not only is affordable housing a crisis, but the homeless population that results from not having enough housing stock in the United States of America is also a crisis and ends up costing us more money to deal with the same population.

This is not a new issue. It is not a new problem. We have been trying to fight to address this issue in the U.S. Senate and to deal with the affordable housing crisis for years, but the magnitude of the problem is getting worse. We need to respond by helping to increase supply. That is because we have so many demographic trends which we see in report after report citing and documenting what is happening in the United States of America.

We have an ever-increasing senior population that is living longer and baby boomers reaching retirement, many of whom need more affordable housing than there is in the marketplace.

We have returning veterans from our overseas missions who are coming home and who also need affordable housing.

We need workforce housing. Many parts of the United States of America have had great economic success but have not kept pace with the amount of housing stock, and, thus, the supply and pricing has resulted in astronomical challenges to provide affordable housing within a region that doesn't leave people driving hours a day just to commute to their jobs.

We have the remnants of our economic crisis during the great recession that left so many people without affordable housing and the fact that we did not keep pace with supply.

Over the last 2 years, I have worked with many organizations at the national level and participated in the announcement of many reports done by practically every institution of any significance in the United States. They all came to the same conclusion: We need to increase supply.

That is why I am introducing the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2019, along with my colleagues Senator Young of Indiana, Senator Isakson of Georgia, and Senator Wyden of Oregon, to strengthen and improve the affordable tax credit that we already have in place. My colleagues in the House--Representatives DelBene, Marchant, Beyer, and Walorski--are also introducing companion legislation today.

We did make progress in the last Congress in increasing the affordable tax credit. This tax credit helps provide resources for 90 percent of the federally-funded affordable housing that is built in the United States of America. That is because it takes the tax credit to incent people to build at this more affordable rate.

I have always said to my colleagues that I am willing to consider any other ideas that we have to increase affordable housing and will work with anybody to increase supply in the United States, and I am open to any ideas. But until we have ideas that are more successful than this, I am going to continue to push the affordable housing tax credit and push to increase the supply of the tax credit so that we can increase the supply of affordable housing.

We have a housing crisis in the State of Washington. It doesn't matter whether you are in Spokane or Walla Walla or Yakima or Vancouver. Our urban areas feel it the most and are most pinched. It causes problems for our law enforcement. It causes problems for our healthcare delivery system. It causes problems for our transportation system. The way out of this problem is to build more affordable housing.

Increasing the amount of tax credit by 50 percent over the next 10 years will give our States, our cities, and our counties more resources to build affordable housing. It will also provide stability in the value of affordable housing tax credits used in the bond finance markets and place a 4-percent

floor under the credit. This gives more certainty to those who are building housing and producing it and rehabilitating that in the market.

It also maximizes the availability of the private activity bonds by recycling any multifamily bonds that are used along with housing credits to build affordable housing. Together, these steps would help us build hundreds of thousands of new units of affordable housing over the next 10 years.

In my State and other States, it would mean that we would see a 50- percent increase in the amount of credit available over the next 10 years. That is so important because each housing project that is built takes more people out of the dire situations they are in, takes the vulnerable population and gives them the opportunity to move forward.

It also saves us dollars. The Senate Finance Committee has heard time and again from those testifying--whether it is the homebuilders or the health insurance industry--that it is more costly to deal with this population while they are homeless. That is to say, you can't deliver job training to a tent. And somebody who doesn't have proper home and a stable place to live is more likely to show up in our healthcare delivery system, costing us more money.

This legislation will also make it easier for formerly homeless students to also get help from the affordable housing tax credit under current HUD rules of the program.

It also helps those who are protected under the Violence Against Women Act can also qualify for affordable housing as they have in the past.

We know that the challenge of moving forward on affordable housing is something that is a bipartisan issue. The tax credit has had bipartisan support for many, many years in the U.S. Congress. We just need to put the pedal to the metal and provide more of the tax credit so that we can get more affordable housing built in the United States of America.

I hope my colleagues will help by signing on to this legislation, and as we discuss various proposals in the Finance Committee regarding tax policy, I hope my colleagues will help us push to our States and communities more solutions that will deal with this crisis.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the introduction of Senate legislation to help us deal with the affordable housing crisis in the United States of America.

Many of my colleagues know how pervasive this problem is. Not only is affordable housing a crisis, but the homeless population that results from not having enough housing stock in the United States of America is also a crisis and ends up costing us more money to deal with the same population.

This is not a new issue. It is not a new problem. We have been trying to fight to address this issue in the U.S. Senate and to deal with the affordable housing crisis for years, but the magnitude of the problem is getting worse. We need to respond by helping to increase supply. That is because we have so many demographic trends which we see in report after report citing and documenting what is happening in the United States of America.

We have an ever-increasing senior population that is living longer and baby boomers reaching retirement, many of whom need more affordable housing than there is in the marketplace.

We have returning veterans from our overseas missions who are coming home and who also need affordable housing.

We need workforce housing. Many parts of the United States of America have had great economic success but have not kept pace with the amount of housing stock, and, thus, the supply and pricing has resulted in astronomical challenges to provide affordable housing within a region that doesn't leave people driving hours a day just to commute to their jobs.

We have the remnants of our economic crisis during the great recession that left so many people without affordable housing and the fact that we did not keep pace with supply.

Over the last 2 years, I have worked with many organizations at the national level and participated in the announcement of many reports done by practically every institution of any significance in the United States. They all came to the same conclusion: We need to increase supply.

That is why I am introducing the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2019, along with my colleagues Senator Young of Indiana, Senator Isakson of Georgia, and Senator Wyden of Oregon, to strengthen and improve the affordable tax credit that we already have in place. My colleagues in the House--Representatives DelBene, Marchant, Beyer, and Walorski--are also introducing companion legislation today.

We did make progress in the last Congress in increasing the affordable tax credit. This tax credit helps provide resources for 90 percent of the federally-funded affordable housing that is built in the United States of America. That is because it takes the tax credit to incent people to build at this more affordable rate.

I have always said to my colleagues that I am willing to consider any other ideas that we have to increase affordable housing and will work with anybody to increase supply in the United States, and I am open to any ideas. But until we have ideas that are more successful than this, I am going to continue to push the affordable housing tax credit and push to increase the supply of the tax credit so that we can increase the supply of affordable housing.

We have a housing crisis in the State of Washington. It doesn't matter whether you are in Spokane or Walla Walla or Yakima or Vancouver. Our urban areas feel it the most and are most pinched. It causes problems for our law enforcement. It causes problems for our healthcare delivery system. It causes problems for our transportation system. The way out of this problem is to build more affordable housing.

Increasing the amount of tax credit by 50 percent over the next 10 years will give our States, our cities, and our counties more resources to build affordable housing. It will also provide stability in the value of affordable housing tax credits used in the bond finance markets and place a 4-percent

floor under the credit. This gives more certainty to those who are building housing and producing it and rehabilitating that in the market.

It also maximizes the availability of the private activity bonds by recycling any multifamily bonds that are used along with housing credits to build affordable housing. Together, these steps would help us build hundreds of thousands of new units of affordable housing over the next 10 years.

In my State and other States, it would mean that we would see a 50- percent increase in the amount of credit available over the next 10 years. That is so important because each housing project that is built takes more people out of the dire situations they are in, takes the vulnerable population and gives them the opportunity to move forward.

It also saves us dollars. The Senate Finance Committee has heard time and again from those testifying--whether it is the homebuilders or the health insurance industry--that it is more costly to deal with this population while they are homeless. That is to say, you can't deliver job training to a tent. And somebody who doesn't have proper home and a stable place to live is more likely to show up in our healthcare delivery system, costing us more money.

This legislation will also make it easier for formerly homeless students to also get help from the affordable housing tax credit under current HUD rules of the program.

It also helps those who are protected under the Violence Against Women Act can also qualify for affordable housing as they have in the past.

We know that the challenge of moving forward on affordable housing is something that is a bipartisan issue. The tax credit has had bipartisan support for many, many years in the U.S. Congress. We just need to put the pedal to the metal and provide more of the tax credit so that we can get more affordable housing built in the United States of America.

I hope my colleagues will help by signing on to this legislation, and as we discuss various proposals in the Finance Committee regarding tax policy, I hope my colleagues will help us push to our States and communities more solutions that will deal with this crisis.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues who have been speaking this morning about the access to healthcare for women in America. Today, as women take action across the Nation to bring focus to this issue, I would like to join my colleagues, particularly the senior Senator from Washington, and I thank her for her leadership on this important issue. She knows better than most how many times the Senate and the Congress in the last decade have fought over access to healthcare for women. It seems like every budget debate, every fiscal cliff, every budget negotiation, and every issue had to have a debate about whether we were going to defund Planned Parenthood. So it is not a surprise that we are out here today as States across the Nation try to roll back access to healthcare. I guarantee you, I believe and my State believes that access to healthcare should be and is protected under the Constitution as a right to privacy. We believe that and codified Roe v. Wade into statute by a vote of the people in the 1990s. So any time anybody is going to take on access to healthcare for women and erode what is a basic right in our State and, I believe, a basic right protected in our Constitution, we are going to raise our voices. You are going to hear from us. So it is amazing to me that every budget battle and every debate here in the Senate comes down to rolling back access to women's healthcare.

Now we see Supreme Court Justices who may or may not uphold those basic rights as were established in Connecticut v. Griswold, as did a Supreme Court Justice, who just happened to hail from the State of Washington, who understood that the privacy rights protected in the Constitution are in the penumbra of rights. So, yes, I believe that our Supreme Court Justices should also continue that well-established practice of observing those privacy rights. So it is hard to say what all of these State actions will lead to, whether they will make it to the Supreme Court and what this Supreme Court will have to say about it. But I can tell you that we here in the Senate--women who understand the access to healthcare--are so emphatic that we not erode these rights.

I had the very unfortunate situation of having to speak at a funeral this weekend for a 28-year-old former staff member who died of cancer. I know how much fight she had in her, but it was afterward where one of her relatives said to me: Senator, you cannot leave this unaddressed.

Young women at college campuses are not getting the breast exams to do early detection that they should. They should be out there. We should do more to evangelize that young women need to pay attention to their healthcare. Yet we are here across the Nation having this debate, and I guarantee you that the access to healthcare to do those early detections in a lot of communities comes with the access that organizations like Planned Parenthood and others deliver. So while they are not what is immediately under attack by these States, I guarantee you that it is all a part of a larger debate that needs to stop.

Healthcare should be the right of women to be discussed with their doctors and continue to be protected under our Constitution.

I thank the President.

I yield the floor.