Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come and join my colleague from Oregon on the floor this evening and thank him very much for his comments and hard-fought efforts to try to illuminate the issues that are before the American people in this nomination that we are going to be voting on.

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does

oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight . . . and

it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of

change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting

victims of the darkness.

Those aren't my words; those are the words of the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Yes, that is right, I quoted William O. Douglas--not because he was from Yakima, WA, via Maine, originally, but because I wanted to bring up the rights of Americans that could be undermined by the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That is because for generations the U.S. Supreme Court has been an institution that affirmed rights of Americans and moved our country forward, especially when we needed it most.

In 1954, it made a landmark decision to end segregation of our schools and to rightly give access to equal education. In 1964, it recognized the right to privacy and the ability to access contraception. It is hard to imagine today, in this era, that we needed that fundamental right and that it had been previously blocked. Yet it was. In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental rights of marriage for same-sex couples, holding that they had equal protection under the law.

Yes, these are rights that have been decided by our Court and have moved our country forward. So I became very concerned when President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court because he was on a list of an organization that wanted to see the literal text of the statute over upholding the hard-won rights of all Americans.

When it comes to the rights of consumers--healthcare rights, environmental laws, privacy rights, labor rights--I want to know where a Supreme Court Justice is going to be in upholding those hard-won rights that Americans and our society have pushed forward for decades. In this case, he will be replacing a Justice who has been a key vote on many fundamental rights in America.

So I definitely express my opinion that I do not believe that Judge Kavanaugh will protect those hard-won rights. And my concern is that he does not have a judicial philosophy that is in the mainstream views of America. He has the most dissents of any judge on the DC Circuit. That is to say that he is dissenting from even the most conservative judges on that Court. He is still dissenting. So I don't find those views in the mainstream views of Americans.

Let's just take one example: healthcare. More than 3 million Washingtonians in my State have preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, and asthma, and Americans don't want to be discriminated against because of their medical history.

More than 75 percent of Americans support the preexisting condition protections that have been put into law under the Affordable Care Act. These protections help keep them from having medical debt and uncompensated care. All of these issues are very important for us to continue to protect.

In 2011, Judge Kavanaugh refused to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and he has criticized the Supreme Court's decision to uphold parts of that law. In his confirmation hearings, he refused to say whether these current protections for Americans are constitutional. His record suggests that he will not defend these protections or Congress's clear intent in writing them.

It is not just some theoretical issue. Today, these protections are being threatened in the courts. They are being threatened by a group of Republican attorneys general who are trying to get a Federal court in Texas to strike down these protections in the healthcare law, and the Justice Department has decided to join those States in asking the courts to strike down these preexisting condition protections. So this case is definitely working its way through the court system and could likely end up before the Supreme Court.

Some have suggested: Well, don't worry about that. Don't worry about that because Justice Roberts will uphold the healthcare law. He will be the swing vote, and Judge Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court is irrelevant on this point.

That is wrong. First, you really can't count on Chief Justice Roberts in upholding the Affordable Care Act. In fact, that is what the attorneys general are arguing, that his previous decision will help to strike down the law. The times and circumstances are different now because the Federal Government isn't fighting to protect the Affordable Care Act, which it did in previous administrations, and there is no guarantee that Justice Roberts will rule in favor of the law. There are other aspects of the Affordable Care Act that he has also sided against.

It is hard to believe now that this fundamental right that has been so hard fought for so many people may be in danger. I can say that in my State, I have been in hospital after hospital and healthcare facility after healthcare facility. Doctors say to me that they can't even imagine what it is going to be like to go back to prior to the preexisting condition protections. It has become such a norm that they are covering people that they couldn't imagine that kind of discrimination today.

When it comes to reproductive rights, those are under threat as well. In 2017, Judge Kavanaugh suggested that he supported Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Roe v. Wade, which called the landmark decision a product of ``freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights that were not rooted in the nation's history.''

As somebody who sat on the Judiciary Committee for the first 2 years I was in the Senate, I can guarantee that I asked every judicial nominee whether they believed in the penumbra of rights guaranteed in the Constitution for the right to privacy or they didn't. The reason I did that is because those who really don't believe that Roe was rightly decided believe that those rights are not enumerated and could overturn them in the future.

While Judge Kavanaugh may now believe that Roe v. Wade is settled law, records from his days in the administration raise doubts. Perhaps more importantly, during his confirmation hearing, he refused to say whether it was wrongly decided. Why is that important? Because in the near future, if a majority on the Supreme Court decides that it was previously wrongly decided, they can just overturn it.

If Judge Kavanaugh does not believe the Constitution gives women the right to make decisions about their own bodies, then whatever assurance he gives us now about precedent is hollow. This is why it is so important to people in my State. We voted in 1991 by an initiative of the people to have this right in our State law. We in the State of Washington and millions of women want to see every woman in America have these same rights.

I took President Trump at his word when he said he was going to put a nominee on the Court who automatically would overturn this. These Justices--Roberts and conservatives like Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch-- would now be joined by Kavanaugh and overturn this right in a 5-to-4 decision. Even if they don't fully overturn it, they could effectively undermine its protections piece by piece. Chief Justice Roberts, for instance, has repeatedly upheld restrictive limits on reproductive rights. These Justices have proven themselves very willing to restrict access to safe and legal abortions.

As I said, the people of my State decided that they wanted to protect this, and I am here to help and defend that for other women in the United States of America.

If Judge Kavanaugh were to serve a lifetime appointment on the Court, he could also pose threats to the rights of LGBTQ Americans not just in my State but across the country. The Supreme Court will likely hear cases that impact this community.

There are cases pending like the Arlene Flowers case in the State of Washington where a florist refused to provide services at a gay couple's wedding. The Court could also likely hear arguments on President Trump's discriminatory ban on transgender servicemembers. The rights of LGBTQ Americans are at stake with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench because his broad view of religious freedom could provide a license to discriminate against these individuals.

Judge Kavanaugh's record also suggests that he will be hostile to the protection of other privacy rights. In 2015, after it was revealed that the National Security Administration, NSA, had been collecting Americans' phone records in bulk without warrant, Judge Kavanaugh decided that national security needs outweighed individuals' right to privacy. He supported expanding warrantless surveillance by the government.

What is more, Judge Kavanaugh has ruled in favor of a restrictive voter identification law, raising concerns that he would support scaling back hard-won voting rights. Those rights are sacred in our country, and the last thing we need is a Supreme Court that would refuse to defend them.

I am also concerned about his views on issues that could affect Native Americans. Native Americans need to have their sovereignty recognized and their rights protected. In this term alone, there could be three cases before the Court, and some of the most basic Tribal rights in our country are at risk. Judge Kavanaugh's position, found in his own writings before he became a Federal court judge, indicated that he did not take seriously the constitutional rights of Tribal governments and the sovereign obligation of the United States when it entered into treaties and agreements with Tribal and Indian people and Alaska Natives.

Time and again, these issues are before us and before a court, and that is why, as I said, I believe in a court that protects these hard- won rights. I know that textualists will tell you something different, but where would we be on just the basic rights of contraception if we didn't have a court that did not find unenumerated rights in our Constitution? Where would we be on the future rights of privacy that need to be protected in the United States of America?

Time and again, Judge Kavanaugh has favored big companies over everyday Americans, using a twisted logic to defend big corporate polluters. Kavanaugh seems to have a particular animus against the Environmental Protection Agency and its efforts to follow Congress in a direction that has been given in law to reduce air and water pollution. That is a direct affront to the leadership of people like Ed Muskie, who led Congress in its effort to pass the Clean Air Act in 1970 and control pollution and in 1990 when Congress amended the law to combat acid rain, ozone depletion, and auto emissions. And since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Clean Air Act.

In 2007, in the Massachusetts case, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and Justice Kennedy, whom Judge Kavanaugh will replace, provided the fifth and deciding vote in that decision. But as Kennedy's replacement on the Court, the government's ability to mitigate climate change could be lost. That would mean everything from not addressing these impacts we are seeing on our coastal communities to what we are seeing in damage from wildfires, and it could mean that the report that was done by the Government Accountability Office saying that climate change impacts are costing us over $620 billion every 10 years will continue to be ignored.

We want a Supreme Court Justice who is going to follow the law and abide by and uphold what Congress has said, and that is what the Court has said as well. Judge Kavanaugh said he didn't think the EPA had the authority to regulate air pollution across States. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed his opinion. In a 6-to-2 decision, they concluded that Judge Kavanaugh had improperly applied his own policy judgment rather than the plain text of the statute written by Congress. That is what the Supreme Court said in reversing him.

I will say it again. The U.S. Supreme Court said Judge Kavanaugh used his own policy judgments rather than the law as it was written by Congress.

So, yes, I have concerns that his views are not in the mainstream of America and of judicial philosophy when it comes to protecting our environment.

In another case, he opposed the EPA's interpretation that it could control ``any air pollutant'' because he thought that the terms of the Clean Air Act didn't include that. He also sought to limit its authority to protect Americans from greenhouse gases. In a 2013 case-- the Center for Biological Diversity--Kavanaugh said that the Clean Air Act does not even cover carbon dioxide at all.

In fact, he ruled to weaken environmental protections in 89 percent of the cases that have come before him. So I do not call that in the mainstream views of judicial philosophy.

Tomorrow, we will have major issues before us as this vote takes place. When it comes to whether you are siding on behalf of the American worker or large corporations, I, too, have concerns.

In a 2015 case, he overruled the National Labor Relations Board, siding with a hotel that had requested police officers to issue criminal citations to union demonstrators who were legally protesting.

In another case, Kavanaugh sided with a company that had banned employees who interacted with customers or who worked in public from wearing union shirts that said certain words on them. The NLRB found that the employer committed an unfair labor practice, but Judge Kavanaugh disagreed,

concluding that the union members did not have a right to wear the shirts because the company believed it would be damaged.

In 2013, a SeaWorld trainer was dismembered and killed by a whale during a live show. Kavanaugh ruled against the Occupational Health and Safety Commission's conclusions that SeaWorld had acted wrongly and had insufficiently limited trainers' physical contact with orcas.

I am concerned about the information age that we live in and that when it comes to issues relating to protecting consumer rights, there is no bigger consumer right than protecting the right of those on the internet to access information. We cannot have a two-tiered internet system in which these rights are not protected by a court.

In this case, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that the FCC did not have the right to regulate broadband providers as ``common carriers.'' Instead, he made it clear that he believes that broadband cable companies should be able to control your internet experience as they see fit.

Part of his flawed analysis rested on the idea that what the FCC was purporting to do by protecting consumers was a type of rule that was so consequential that it could only stand if Congress bestowed ``clear and unambiguous authority'' on the agency. This is in contradiction to the Supreme Court's own precedent, which determined that the FCC did have the authority to decide whether and how to regulate broadband.

The other part of his faulty analysis rested on the view that cable and broadband companies that operate the pipes that serve as a ramp to the internet have First Amendment rights, and they should be able to exercise that right to deny or limit consumers' access to content.

I guarantee you that saying that the First Amendment gives cable companies the right to charge whatever they want to charge you for the future is not in the mainstream view of judicial philosophy or what the American people have come to expect.

So let me say again that these important issues are not part of Judge Kavanaugh's willingness to protect these rights to healthcare, of the environment, of privacy, of consumer rights, and the things that we hold so dear, that we have all fought for, legislated for, and had courts uphold and preserve.

I am not buying the notion that a strict textualist is the way to go. I believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have every right to disagree with that, but I would ask them, how are you ever going to move America forward in decisions like our desegregation of education or on contraception or on these other privacy rights if you don't interpret the Constitution to today's needs?

I would say now that the biggest threat we face is the overreaching of an administration that every single day does something to not comply with the law as it is written. The President just issued an Executive order weeks ago that exempted administrative law judges from the competitive service; instead allowing the agencies to hire them.

The President's Executive order does not reflect the mainstream views of Americans. Administrative law judges should be well qualified and impartial, and the process to select them nonpartisan and fair.

Is this judge going to challenge the President or is he just going to say that he agrees with the President of the United States? As one White House Counsel from the Nixon administration said, if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, it ``will be the most Presidential powers- friendly Supreme Court in the modern era.''

Well, I can tell you this: If those on the other side of the aisle are promoting this nomination because they want a rubberstamp on the Trump administration, we will fight them every step of the way. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the impartial arbitrator, the one that, even though we have different Congresses and different views, interprets the law over a period of time, that does not make political decisions but makes impartial decisions. To have somebody on the Court now when every day an administration is not following the law and basically subverting it--it is a time where we need a Supreme Court to stand up and do their job and hold the administration accountable.

I am sure it is not pleasant to hold an administration accountable, but this is an important time for checks and balances in the United States of America. I don't believe that the rights of individuals will be protected from the overreach of this administration or be defended by this nominee.

I know a lot has been said today about what the process for this nominee has been for the Court. I know there is a lot that will continue to be discussed after this day about how this institution has handled this situation and the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. All I can say is that we need to do better. We need, as an institution, to have a better process for evaluating these situations and how to make them less partisan.

But I will tell you this: I found the testimony by Dr. Ford credible, and those saying ``Well, it must have happened; it just wasn't him'' is another example of denial of information instead of getting to the truth of the situation. We have to do better because we are an institution that is supposed to lead on this issue. We are not supposed to be an institution like the other institutions we have seen sweep these allegations under the rug, only to come back at some point in time when there are 300 cases or 400 cases or X number of people who have been impacted.

This institution has to figure out a better way to lead on this issue, and I plan to continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help us continue to focus on this. So many people in America are counting on us, so many women in America are counting on us, and so many Tribal women are counting on us. The statistics are just too high to leave a nominee on the Court with a doubt about this investigation, with this situation not rendered to a point where more people felt that the information was fully investigated. We have to do better. We are going to be challenged as we move forward.

As I said, I don't believe that Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is in the mainstream of judicial philosophy in the United States of America. That is why I am not supporting him. I didn't support him when he was first nominated for the DC Circuit Court because I had doubts that he would be that individual who would put political, partisanship aside and be that impartial Justice. I didn't make a decision right away; I went back and researched his record. I looked at the decisions on basic rights that so many Americans are counting on, and I can tell you this: For these rights, you cannot count on Judge Kavanaugh. Therefore, he does not get my consent to move forward to the Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor to follow my colleagues, Senators Thune and Nelson and to thank them for the FAA bill which we just passed and which is on its way to the President's desk. I so appreciated working with the chairman and ranking member and my colleague on the subcommittee, Senator Blunt, on this FAA reauthorization bill.

As mentioned by the chairman, this is the first long-term reauthorization in decades, and it represents a 5-year investment in critical infrastructure that our airports need all throughout the United States.

It represents for us in the Pacific Northwest hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in our airports that help us continue to grow our economic and regional economies. Everybody in the State of Washington knows that we are bursting at the seams when it comes to our airports and that we need more capacity--particularly at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, where we saw an increase of nearly 2 million passengers. It has been one of the fastest growing airports in the Nation for the last 5 years. This long-term infrastructure bill will provide hundreds of millions of dollars for airport investments in our State and will help us meet that growth and demand.

This bill is also a major down payment on security and efficiency to help us handle that growth and the impact to our economy and to our transportation systems. That is one of the reasons this bill has provisions to bring more K-9 units to airports throughout the United States, including the State of Washington. The K-9 units have been vital to helping us cut nearly in half the time it takes to get passengers through the airport screening process, and I believe they are a tremendous deterrent, and they make sure that our airports are safe and secure from those who may want to do harm. The fact that we are improving the ability of these K-9 units to be supported by local airports is one of the great aspects of this bill as well.

We also want to note that our airport infrastructure across the State includes a lot of contract towers; that is, airports that help us with regional transportation, private transportation, and a diverse range of operations. Yet these airports are often in the shadows of larger airports, whether that is Felts Field in Spokane or Walla Walla Airport. Making sure that these contract tower airports receive support and funding so they can continue to help our aviation sector and the flying public is a great aspect of this bill.

Also, many of my colleagues have talked about the other improvements to safety and security. We are continuing to make a down payment on next-generation technology; that is, our air traffic control system. I can't say enough about how important it is for us to continue to move forward on the NextGen aviation system. It helps us fly more efficiently. It saves on fuel costs. It helps our system operate more efficiently. The bill's innovation also takes a next step forward on unmanned aerial vehicles.

I again thank our colleagues--particularly Senator Thune and Senator Nelson--for their great work on this, and my colleague Senator Blunt. Making aviation investments is critical to continuing to grow an aviation economy in the United States. It is also just as critical to growing economies around the State because air transportation helps them attract and keep businesses in the area. While we have Sea-Tac bursting at the seams, we have other regional airports that are still trying to grow, and giving them this infrastructure investment will help in the future.

I again thank our colleagues. I am glad we are moving forward on the first long-term aviation infrastructure investment in decades. Some of us here may remember the last bill, on which I think we had something like 23 extensions over many, many years before we finally got a bill. So this represents the first time in many decades that we now have a 5- year picture that we can look at and see the investment for aviation moving forward.

I thank my colleagues and will continue to work with them on other aspects of aviation improvement for the future.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to thank my colleagues Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for this important opioids legislation. Parts of it passed out of the Senate Finance Committee as well. So I want to thank Senators Hatch and Wyden for their work on this very comprehensive package.

This important legislation, which, I think, is the third in the bills we passed related to opioids, couldn't come at a more important time. This crisis is ravaging our communities. It is impacting families.

We need to do all we can to help those on the frontlines. That is why I have been from Port Angeles to Spokane, to southwest Washington, to Everett to talk about this issue and to try to provide the solutions that my law enforcement and community people want in this legislation.

I am so excited that the legislation will mean that there are more available beds through Medicaid to treat those addicted to opioids. This is something we heard about in every community in Washington. We heard that those coming out of our jails addicted to opioids, who had some modicum of an ability to maybe get off of opioids, then had to wait weeks and weeks for treatment in places like Tacoma or Spokane, where there simply weren't enough beds.

This legislation allows Medicaid to cover treatment at institutions with more than 16 beds for up to 30 days. It means that funding will be available to States and local governments to help treat opioid addiction, and it is very important in the State of Washington because we have received $43 million in the past 3 years to help us with these tools. It means funding tools for law enforcement so that they can help combat drug trafficking rings.

Specifically, this legislation includes more than $4 million in tools to support our State of Washington through the HIDTA Program, which fights drug-trafficking rings.

In 2016 alone, the Seattle-based Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area helped to disrupt and dismantle 81 different drug- trafficking organizations.

This support and help for our law enforcement and our sheriffs to keep doing their job is incredibly important. I have heard from our sheriffs who played great roles in this. Sheriff Pastor in Pierce County, the King County Sheriff, and our Snohomish County Sheriff have all done great work on this very important legislation.

This legislation also includes stiffer penalties for those who illegally distribute opioids that have been flooding our communities. We have talked to so many people about this problem. I joined with our attorney general, Bob Ferguson, and 39 other State attorneys general in pushing legislation that I and Senator Harris of California authored that basically said we are not doing a good enough job in tracking the distribution of these opioids, and we need to have stiffer fines and penalties for those who don't do their job in tracking the distribution of this drug.

Our communities have been flooded, and those attorneys general said: Please ensure that effective penalties hold manufacturers accountable and help stem the diversion of this product.

How did we get here? When Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 to regulate highly addictive drugs, including prescriptions for opioids, they did so because they were so addictive; yet Congress said you must follow a network of laws to track these controlled substances. You need to know exactly where the manufacturers are distributing these drugs, to whom, and how much.

Why did they want that? Because they knew they were so addictive that, if they got on the streets and flooded communities and marketplaces, we would have a devastating impact.

Well, because the fines and penalties were so small, these manufacturers paid no mind to this provision of the law. Despite the requirements, large quantities of opioids flooded into communities. Because law enforcement didn't understand how much they were flooding their communities and didn't have the records, there was little to track. So you had excessive shipments from manufacturers.

In one example, a physician in Everett, WA, wrote more than 10,000 prescriptions for opioids. This number of prescriptions was 26 times higher than the average prescriber in Everett. I know that sounds suspicious, but the drug manufacturer didn't even report the activity. The DEA didn't have the information. Instead, the physician continued, and the manufacturer continued to distribute to them.

Why did this lack of reporting continue? It is because the fines currently in place for failing to track distribution were so small. They did not feel they were a threat, given the other aspects of the business. Current fines for failing to follow the Federal law just weren't enough. That is why we put new standards in place.

I traveled throughout our State to talk about this and to talk about how our communities have been flooded with this drug. Every time, law enforcement and local communities said: We need new tools--tools to stop the distribution, tools to help our law enforcement break up rings and track the drugs, and new tools to help those who have been impacted by opioids.

That is why we are bumping these fines up to $500,000 per criminal violation. These penalties increase the chances that opioid manufacturers will think twice about not reporting this distribution. In the case of Everett, that manufacturer could have been fined $900 million because of their activities. I guarantee you that this is a deterrent if a manufacturer thinks they are going to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.

I hope they will take this seriously. This legislation is needed and will go

to the President's desk. It is so important for our communities to have tools.

I also want to commend my colleague the Senator from Ohio for putting in language to increase the tools for U.S. mail inspections. We know we are seeing product being shipped into the United States and that we haven't had all of the tools we have needed to make sure we are checking the U.S. mail for this product. The STOP Act, hopefully, will help us catch and stop more of the illegal distribution of this product through the U.S. mail.

There will be longer coverage for beds to help with treatment, more tools for our sheriffs and police forces, better ways to penalize manufacturers, which is the key to helping us stop the diversion of drugs into communities, and better inspections of those who are using our mail system.

These are all great tools to give to law enforcement. I am glad our colleagues could come together on this, and it is so needed in the State of Washington. I thank the law enforcement throughout our State and thank the providers for helping us work together to get this legislation passed.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill. Before I do that, I would like to take a moment to recognize a graduate of Rogers High School in Puyallup, WA. SSG Ronald J. Shurer II, who received the Medal of Honor yesterday for his selfless heroism in Afghanistan.

When he heard wounded members of his team were trapped on a hill, he didn't hesitate. In the face of heavy enemy fire, Staff Sergeant Shurer shielded three wounded teammates with his own body and helped them reach safety.

I congratulate Staff Sergeant Shurer for his heroism and bravery and his sacrifice, and I would like to congratulate him and his family on his receiving this honor. We in Washington are very proud of Staff Sergeant Shurer.

Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to join the voices of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--in making sure this process that is going to continue to play out over the next several days is a fair one.

I will say to people right now that I am not for Judge Kavanaugh. I don't believe that his decisions and his views are in the mainstream of judicial opinion in the United States of America. I believe that not just about a woman's right to choose. I believe that not just about his decision on net neutrality. I definitely believe that about his decision on executive branch power.

My views are known. I would expound on them if I thought that is what we are here to debate today, and maybe that will happen in the future. But I am here this afternoon to ask my colleagues to think about this issue of sexual assault in a new way. It is not a new way that you have never thought of before, but a way that says it is time for us to slow down and have a nonpartisan investigation into the accusations that have been made by three women.

The reason that is so important is that in the last several days there have been comments that she is mixed up or confused or can't remember. I will tell you this: I guarantee you that any woman in the United States of America who has been assaulted remembers that she was assaulted. She may not remember exactly what the person was wearing, and she may not remember every person who was there, but I guarantee you it is seared into her mind, into her heart, and into her soul that she has been assaulted.

The question before us in the U.S. Senate is, Are we going to take seriously the process and not rush it to a conclusion and not join the ranks of other institutions that have swept allegations under the rug?

We all know where the Catholic Church is today, with information and documentation of accusations where people decided that, no, those couldn't be true; no, we don't have to listen; no, we can do something about it.

When I think about the fact that at least 332 victims were abused by one person in the gymnastics program at Michigan State and people said ``We don't have to pay attention to that,'' when I think about what happened at Penn State to young boys that people deny, that this couldn't be what is happening with Jerry Sandusky--it couldn't possibly be happening--I know that this is a cultural problem.

I have heard statistics that cite that anywhere from 20 percent of women in the United States of America have faced sexual abuse to a website by the Centers for Disease Control that says it is one in three women. One in three women in the United States of America has faced sexual assault or abuse, and we don't think it is a crisis? I am pretty sure there are more women in the United States of America who have been the victims of sexual assault than of the opioid crisis, yet we call that a crisis. What are we doing to make sure we are not like other institutions that have not fully addressed this issue?

We do not want to be the ones who rush through a process that demonstrates that the vote on the Supreme Court is more important than getting the truth. We need a nonpartisan investigation into the facts of these allegations against this Supreme Court nominee.

When I think of the tragedy that faces Native American women, it breaks my heart. Over 50 percent of Native American women have faced sexual assault and abuse--50 percent. How is that not a crisis?

So my colleagues, I know, do not think they are doing damage. They think they are sticking up for a nominee. They think they are sticking up for somebody that their team--their bench--pulled out of the ranks of their party or their backgrounds suggest that he should be the nominee. I understand their desire. But the desire today has to be that we do not make the same mistakes as other institutions, that we pay attention to these things and we take them seriously.

I implore my colleagues to do so. Why? It is because every victim in the United States of America who thinks that you are not giving these accusations their due is reoffended in the belief that society does not take this crisis seriously.

So I implore my colleagues: I know you think you are playing on a political scorecard to get something done for your party, but please make sure we have a thorough, nonpartisan investigation into these accusations so that we can tell victims of sexual assault in the United States of America that we treat these accusations seriously. We did our job. There is no rush, but for the actual facts that we can move forward on.

I know we can have more conversations about this. I know we can, and we should. We should. We had these conversations during the debate on the Violence Against Women Act, and we made sure that Native American women are covered under that law--a tricky problem in the Federal law that made a gap even worse by not having the aid and support--and now, with Federal help and support with Indian trial courts, we have created a better system to bring those perpetrators of those crimes to justice.

But we can, as an institution, also come to terms that this is a cultural problem in the United States of America, and we too must do our part. We must help. We must not keep reinjuring people by saying that we are not going to take the time to find the truth.

So I implore my colleagues, please--and for those of you who have spoken out, like my colleague from Arizona: Thank you. Thank you for helping us get to the truth in this matter. Thank you for standing up for women, for men, for Indian Country, and those who have faced this abuse. Let's make

sure that this institution moves in a serious but deliberate and cautious path and does not spend its time tomorrow prosecuting a woman but listening to the facts and information that she gives.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor to thank my colleagues for working so hard on this very important legislation we are going to pass tonight to deal with the opioid crisis.

From Port Angeles to Spokane, I guarantee my colleagues that I have heard about this problem, I have seen how our communities are struggling, and this is the very help that they have been asking for. They want new tools, they want better solutions, and they want us to join the fight against drug manufacturers who push these drugs out to communities when they should be following a process and reporting so that our law enforcement can cut down on the huge amounts of opioids streaming into our communities.

This legislation does many things, and I am glad that it does. The STOP Act will help crack down on shipments of fentanyl into the United States via the U.S. mail, which is something that is very important that we do, and I thank my colleague from Ohio for that.

It authorizes funding for a new grant program to help train law enforcement and protect them against the deadliest opioids, like fentanyl, because their exposure to it has been so unbelievable and it is a risk to them every day they are out there doing their job.

This bill reauthorizes the drug courts program, which many people in the State of Washington have told me has been beneficial to how they deal with this crisis as it relates to the individuals in their States, helping nonviolent offenders recover and helping them move forward.

It reauthorizes the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program, which uses Federal resources to help local law enforcement crack down on illicit drug rings. We need to help law enforcement, which is dealing with this problem every single day, to have the tools to do this job. The fact that it reauthorizes the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program is just the kind of tool they need.

This bill also makes permanent the ability for doctors to treat up to 275 patients with the kind of treatment that is necessary for them, which also helps us to get to people faster and to get them into a recovery situation faster.

One thing I really want to draw attention to is this issue of hearing over and over about how opioid manufacturers have flooded our communities with a product when, in reality, current law says they are supposed to monitor and track the distribution of this drug. Well, in too many cases, those safeguards have not been followed. Throughout their process, they weren't reporting on suspicious orders of opioids that prevents them from ending up in the wrong hands, and in some instances, they ended up in the hands of a black market, which then continued to flood communities with the product.

In one example, a physician in Everett, Washington, wrote more than 10,000 prescriptions of opioids. This number of prescriptions was 26 times higher than the average prescriber in Everett, Washington. So he wrote 26 times more opioid prescriptions than the average provider. However, the drug manufacturer failed to report this suspicious activity.

When we authorized this drug, we said this process is what has to happen. Because of its highly addictive nature, it has to be tracked. Law enforcement has to keep track of and be advised of anything that looks like suspicious activity. This abnormally high number was a clear red flag that should have been reported. Instead, the opioid manufacturer turned a blind eye to the negligent distribution.

In response to those abuses, people in my State and in many other States have been critical and have filed lawsuits because they have been so concerned about this issue. What is clear, though, is that we need to do something now to make sure that opioid manufacturers follow the law that is already on the books about the reporting of suspicious distribution or volumes of distributions that are suspicious. Today, this legislation takes a major step forward on that front by including penalties for negligent opioid distribution strong enough to serve as a deterrent to those manufacturers against the actions we have seen in the past.

The bipartisan Opioid Crisis Response Act includes provisions from legislation that I and Senator Harris from California authored. Our provisions increase the civil and criminal penalties on companies that fail to take responsible measures to prevent their drugs from entering the black market.

Our legislation increases the civil penalties by 10 times, from $10,000 to $100,000 per violation. That adds up very quickly in what we think have been transactions that have been very suspicious. In addition, the bill increases the maximum criminal penalty to $500,000 for companies that willfully disregard and/or knowingly fail to keep proper reporting on these distribution activities.

Again, this is what we put into the law because of the highly addictive nature of these drugs. We said that they have to be monitored and their distribution has to be monitored because prior to today the slap on the wrist was not enough of a deterrent, and most of those requirements were ignored. Today, we are putting a much more stringent requirement in the law to say that they will get serious fines if they don't follow the law.

This is such an important issue that a bipartisan group of 39 U.S. state attorneys general sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of this effort. Our own attorney general, Bob Ferguson, helped in promoting that effort, and I want to thank him. The state attorneys general said:

Diversion of prescription opioids has devastated

communities in our states. The consequences for turning a

blind eye to suspicious opioid orders cannot merely be a cost

of doing business. We urge you to support . . . the CARES Act

to ensure that penalties

effectively hold manufacturers accountable and help stem

diversion.

So I agree with those state attorneys general, and I am so glad this is included in this legislation. Creating a more serious attitude toward the illegal distribution of this product and its falling into the hands of black markets is so serious. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I just wanted to follow my colleague from Washington with comments about having a hearing in the Judiciary Committee as we proceed to next Monday. I think it is very important that all of our colleagues have all of the information. I also think it is important that an investigation be taken seriously and be underway at the same time. So I hope that my colleagues are not just thinking that we will have a hearing and move forward as quickly as possible but will treat this as the serious investigation that people in the State of Washington and around the country want to see. I so appreciate the fact that this is a very challenging time, but information must be received and a true investigation must also occur.

I thank the President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the importance of teaching computer science and coding in our education system. Throughout the United States and especially in my home State of Washington, our internet economy is booming. Nationwide it represents 7 percent of our GDP, which makes up 13 percent of Washington State's economy. In Washington State, over 13,000 internet companies provide more than a quarter of a million jobs.

Every student in America should be taught the tools they need to enter our 21st century economy. Every student in the United States should have the opportunity to learn about the internet, and algorithms, and apps. This is a skills gap we have to close, and that is why I joined with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Cassidy, to introduce the High School CODES Act earlier this year.

Senator Cassidy and I have long considered and spoken about the importance of allowing students to have the ability fulfill a math, science, or language requirement with a coding class.

That is why Senator Cassidy and I were pleased to include language in the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act that the President signed into law yesterday. The language in the bill would allow Federal funds to support ``efforts to expand, develop, and implement programs to increase the students' opportunity for rigorous courses'' in coding and computer science and ``support statewide efforts to create access to implementation of coding and computer science.'' Additionally, Senator Cassidy and I were pleased to get an amendment included in the appropriations bill that highlights the importance of a dedicated funding stream for coding courses in K-12 education.

During the Carl D. Perkins markup negotiations both the majority and minority agreed to include strong report language that captures the intent of our original bill, S. 3122, the High School CODES Act. Additionally, we are pleased that Senator Alexander agreed to send a letter to Education Secretary DeVos expressing the same.

I ask Senator Cassidy, is it your understanding that the purpose of our legislation is to incentivize States to allow coding classes be used in lieu of advanced math, science, or foreign language requirements?

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the importance of teaching computer science and coding in our education system. Throughout the United States and especially in my home State of Washington, our internet economy is booming. Nationwide, it represents 7 percent of our GDP and makes up 13 percent of Washington's economy. In Washington, more than 13,000 internet companies provide more than a quarter of a million jobs.

We want to keep this American success story going, but to do that, we need to make sure these startups have the workforce of tomorrow that they need. That is why it is so important for children throughout the United States to be able to learn to code in school.

Every student in America should be taught the tools they need to enter our 21st-century economy. I laugh and say all the time that I took typing and Latin as my prerequisite requirements in college. I am not saying that typing and Latin didn't help me today, but I question whether we are teaching the same skills today that we need for the 21st-century economy.

Every student in the United States should have the opportunity to learn about the internet, algorithms, and applications. In Washington, we are making progress in this area because 31 percent of our high schools offer coding classes, but more still needs to be done.

According to a great organization, code.org, 90 percent of parents in the United States want their children to study or understand computer science; however, only 40 percent of their children are taught anything about computer programming. Computer jobs are the No. 1 source of new jobs in the country. Currently, there are more than 500,000 computer job openings in the United States.

This is a skills gap we have to close if we want to continue to develop these new products and services. That is why I worked with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Cassidy, to introduce the High School CODES Act earlier this year. Our legislation creates a new Federal grant program to help high schools throughout the country establish or expand coding education programs for their students.

Ninety percent of parents want their children to study computer science, so we should be providing them more opportunities. Children in cities, suburbs and rural communities all should have access to these computer science programs.

As I mentioned, in my State, the demand for computer science and coding programs is clear. Right now, Washington has more than 16,000 good-paying job openings in computer science. Still, only 31 percent of our State schools offered computer science courses for the high school level between 2016 and 2017. What is standing in our way? Well, in many cases, it is the cost of developing a computer science curriculum and getting a program up and running in the high school. That is exactly the problem our legislation tries to solve by giving local communities the resources they need to develop and implement good computer science curriculums that make the most sense for those communities.

As I said, not everybody will necessarily go into computer science. I took typing and Latin, which gave me a fundamental understanding of both of those things. What is wrong with everybody having a fundamental understanding of the language of the 21st-century computer programming?

I was excited, with Senator Cassidy, when we were able to include language in the reauthorization of the Perkins vocational and technical educational bill, which the President signed today, to move us closer to that goal. The language in the bill that was signed by the President would allow the use of Federal funds to support efforts to expand, develop, or implement programs to increase opportunities for students to take rigorous courses in coding and computer science and support statewide efforts to create access to and implementation of coding and computer science. This is a great example of what we can do when working together in a bipartisan manner.

It is the first important step to make sure that every student understands some level of what our economy is going to be built on in the future. We will have plenty of work to do. As I said, not everyone will go into computer science, but having a basic understanding of how just about everything in your home and your workplace is going to work, and even your car and other applications that you have, will be a good bridge to this economy.

We are going to continue to work together and find ways that computer science and coding can be taught in our classrooms. At the Federal level, we don't have a lot of control over that curriculum at the local level, but we can incentivize, as we are doing today, schools across the United States, with a little Federal support, to make sure that coding and computer science are key parts of a high school education.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Cassidy for working on this important issue with me and helping to get it included in this Perkins legislation. I thank all my colleagues for voting for it and the President for signing it. The economy of the future can leave people behind but not if we help prepare them for the future, and part of preparing them for the future is just a basic understanding of how programming and computer science work.

I hope many schools across the United States will take up this opportunity. I hope it will lead to many new applications, new job creations, and greater awareness of what STEM education is all about. Having people trained in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math is key to our country's future. I am so glad the President is signing this legislation today.

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, I come to join the debate this morning on the farm bill and to make sure we get the farm bill passed. It is so important to the State of Washington and to our country.

I know many of my colleagues have been down here talking about agriculture, but in the State of Washington, it is responsible for about 164,000 jobs. And while we produce about $10-plus billion of economic activity, about $180 billion of economic activity goes through our ports every year. So if you are growing an agricultural product in the United States, there is a good chance you are shipping that product through Washington ports, going to Asia and a variety of places.

The agriculture and food industry is a huge part of our U.S. economy as well, and provides 11 percent of total U.S. employment. So to say this bill is an important economic tool is an understatement.

We know that in the United States of America, a trade surplus in agriculture has existed for 50 years. So when we are talking about making investments and opening new markets and protecting agriculture from the trade war that we are seeing, it is very important that this bill helps recognize the hard work that the farmers in the United States of America have done in growing our economy. We must make sure they continue to have those economic opportunities in the future.

Since U.S. exports gained access to markets like South Korea more than a decade ago, Washington farmers in my State have seen increases in exports of up to 80 percent for potatoes and 200 percent for cherries. Agriculture exports support more than a million jobs around the United States, so it's important to maintain our agriculture trade surplus.

I am proud to say that, working with our colleagues, the chairman of the committee, Senator Roberts, and the ranking member, Senator Stabenow, we have worked to make sure that we are making improvements and increasing MAP, the Market Access Program. This critical program provides technical assistance and more flexibility for the Secretary of Agriculture to help our farmers increase access to new markets. This is so important at a time when we are seeing so much chaos in the marketplace. We want to make sure we continue to have an aggressive attitude toward opening markets--not closing them.

From 1977 to 2014, it is estimated that our market access programs produced an average return on investment of $28 for every dollar that was invested--that is, when you are opening a market to sell U.S. products abroad. That is a huge investment for us to export our product into those countries.

I know that some of our colleagues have been working across the aisle to help make sure that MAP funding is more secure and that we invest more. I am working with my colleague, Senator Crapo from Idaho, to make sure that provisions are in this bill that give the Secretary more flexibility to help us on things like our fruit products and potato products from the Pacific Northwest. I appreciate his help making sure this bill represents at least some of us who want to increase those opportunities for the future.

Washington State is the third largest exporter of food and agricultural products in the United States. Our agricultural sector accounts for 13 percent of our economy annually, and we are proud to grow about 300 different types of products. There are nearly 40,000 farms, and, as I said, 164,000 Washingtonians are employed in that sector.

We continue to work to make sure that the type of research that is represented in this bill--the R&D that is done in great institutions in our State, such as Washington State University, provide good information for us. And our agricultural extension programs need to be funded to make sure that conservation continues to be an opportunity for our farmers. Our farmers

must have resources to diversify their crops.

All of these things are important in moving a farm bill through the Senate and on to the President's desk eventually.

I am very concerned that my colleagues in the House of Representatives want to cut or limit the SNAP program. This has been an essential tool as part of ag for a long time and should continue. The notion that we are going to hold up an ag bill at a critical time, when concerns about tariffs are impacting our farmers, is wrong. What we need to do is move forward on giving the assurances to our farmers that we want them to have the research and development, we want them to have the tools of conservation, and that we certainly want them to have the Market Access Program so they can continue to reach markets all around the globe.

Our ag economy is so important to us in the Pacific Northwest. This bill is helping us make a downpayment on it and giving us a little flexibility.

I am going to take the Secretary of Agriculture at his word today. I heard him on television saying he is going to mitigate any kind of damage being done to farmers based on tariffs. I am going to hold him to his word.

Believe me, as we move this legislation through the process, I am going to make sure that every tool is available for the great products that we grow in Washington State. I want them to reach market destinations. I don't want them to be retaliated against in a trade war.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I come to the floor to honor Washington State's finest, Spokane native and Washington State University Cougar Steve Gleason. I know my Senate colleagues will be here later this afternoon to do the same. My colleagues from Louisiana and Washington have introduced legislation to award Steve the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest honor. I look forward to seeing this legislation pass later today by unanimous consent.

Many Washingtonians remember Steve as a standout student athlete whose dedication in the classroom earned him repeated academic honors and whose dominance on the football field and baseball diamond set records and dazzled fans. Everybody back home is pulling for Steve.

Instead of Steve going to the Seahawks, he signed with the New Orleans Saints. He quickly became a fan favorite for his work ethic and the joy he brought to the game.

In his first game back under the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina, he blocked a punt that was returned for a touchdown. It is a play I know Saints' fans around the country still remember fondly.

It is not Steve's athletic feats at Washington State University or in the Superdome that make him worth recognition, it is his perseverance, determination, his unbreakable spirit in the face of ALS, and his dogged advocacy for people who have been impacted by this disease.

That is why Steve is such an inspiration to the people of Spokane, throughout the State of Washington, and across the United States. Through his public advocacy and collaboration with Congress, Steve helped pass the Steve Gleason Act, which ensures that people with ALS and other degenerative diseases can access speech-generating devices, whether at home or in a health facility.

His leadership with the Gleason Initiative Foundation brought together the largest ALS research project in the world, and his work has helped us improve the lives of countless individuals who have been impacted by this disease.

We could not be more proud of him, and that is why we are here today, to make sure this legislation gives that appropriate recognition. Steve Gleason said: ``Our potential is not contained in our physical bodies, but rather in our mind and in our spirit.''

I so appreciate all he has done to help fight this disease. He has been such a leader in communicating the needs of those with ALS and showing the progress we all can make. I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to thank my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, for including provisions from my legislation, the Comprehensive Addiction Reform, Education, and Safety, CARES, Act of 2018, S. 2440, in her bill the Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act of 2018, S. 2838. Specifically, the provisions contained in my legislation provides for a tenfold increase on civil penalties from $10,000 to $100,000 and doubles criminal penalties from $250,000 to $500,000 on opioid manufacturers that fail to report suspicious orders of opioids and fail to maintain intern controls against diversion of their drugs. Senator Feinstein's bill was considered in and reported out of the Judiciary Committee just before the Memorial Day recess.

Sadly, the opioid and heroin epidemic continues to ravage communities in my home State of Washington and throughout the United States. Between 1999 and 2016, over 10,000 Washingtonians suffered fatal overdoses from opioids and heroin.

Over the past 4 months, I have held seven roundtables and events in every corner of my State to hear about how the epidemic is affecting Washington State communities from law enforcement, education, and health perspectives. I have heard heartbreaking stories from individuals recovering from addiction and have been moved by their courage.

One consistent thread I have heard throughout my State is that opioid manufacturers need to be held accountable for their role in helping to instigate this ongoing crisis.

Drug manufacturers of controlled substances, like highly addictive opioids, are required under Federal law to keep track and report any suspicious orders or red flags on the distribution of these drugs. However, opioid manufacturers, through their failure to report suspicious orders of prescription opioids and failure to maintain their own controls against diversion, helped create an illicit market for prescription opioids that flooded our communities with highly addictive substances.

My home State of Washington and many other States, cities, and counties have filed lawsuits against opioid manufacturers for their failure to follow the law and the devastating impact those decisions have had on their communities.

However, it should not take lawsuits to get opioid manufacturers to follow the law and be held accountable for their role in this crisis.

Instead, we need to make sure opioid manufacturers follow the law by making the penalties strong enough to serve as an effective deterrent.

For these reasons, on February 15, 2018, I introduced the Comprehensive Addiction Reform, Education, and Safety, CARES, Act of 2018, S. 2440, with my colleague Senator Harris of California to do just that.

This legislation increases civil and criminal penalties on companies that fail to reasonably curtail their drugs from entering the illicit drug market. Our legislation increases civil penalties from $10,000 to $100,000 per violation for negligence in reporting suspicious transaction activity. In addition, the bill increases the maximum criminal penalty from $250,000 to $500,000 for companies that willfully disregard and/or knowingly fail to keep proper reporting systems or fail to report suspicious activity. Again, I am pleased that Senator Feinstein included these provisions as part of her legislation, the Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act of 2018, S. 2838.

Demonstrating the importance of this issue, a group of bipartisan 39 State and Territories attorneys general sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 2018, in support of my legislation, the CARES Act, S. 2440, that holds opioid manufacturers accountable for negligent distribution practices by increasing civil and criminal penalties.

The attorneys general wrote: ``Diversion of prescription opioids has devastated communities in our states. The consequences for turning a blind eye to suspicious opioid orders cannot merely be a cost of doing business. We urge you to support CARA 2.0 and the CARES Act to ensure that penalties effectively hold manufacturers accountable and help stem diversion.''

Additionally, I introduced the CARA 2.0 legislation on February 27, 2018, with Senators Portman, Capito, Cassidy, Hassan, Klobuchar, Sullivan, and Whitehouse. This legislation, while providing authorizations for treatment and naloxone programs, also includes my provision to increase penalties on opioid manufacturers that do not follow the law. This same provision is what Senator Feinstein has included in her legislation, the Using Data to prevent Opioid Diversion Act of 2018, S. 2838.

We must hold opioid manufacturers accountable in our fight to end this scourge. I hope that the Senate will pass this legislation so it can be signed into law.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii, and our sympathy is with the State of Hawaii as they respond to this volcanic eruption. I noticed on the news this morning that they were referencing it could be as bad as Mount St. Helens. Trust me, that had a devastating impact on our State. I hope that all Federal agencies are helping in whatever ways they can with Hawaii's natural disaster.

I also thank her for talking about the importance of net neutrality. I, too, have come to the floor to defend the open internet. It is a pro-consumer, pro-innovation rule that we have to build on because it is worth 7 percent of our GDP and 6.9 million jobs. That is what the internet economy is.

The net neutrality rules that we are fighting for today have four bright-line rules that help businesses, help consumers, and help our internet economy to grow. They are these: No. 1, don't block content; No. 2, don't throttle content--that is, don't slow it down--and No. 3, don't create paid prioritization, which is like in the Burger King ad saying: If you want the next Whopper available, pay $15. I think they did a pretty good job of showing what would happen if you had every business operating that way. No. 4 is transparency, to make sure that you know exactly what you are getting charged for.

The Obama-era Federal Communications Commission adopted rules that basically protected consumers and businesses on those four things. Why did they do that? Because there were some who were trying to eke their way into making more money off of consumers and businesses on what is basic service.

Title II was the regulatory framework that the Obama-era FCC used to make sure that consumers were protected. They were the strongest tools available, and they helped to make sure that there was not monopolistic behavior that would harm businesses.

The rule that was established by the then-Federal Communications Commission was an open internet with the FCC being the cop on the beat. That is to say, if you have these rules, you also have to have someone who is going to enforce them, someone who is going to look at the monopolistic behaviors of cable companies or providers and say: That is unfair to consumers and businesses.

But under the Trump-era FCC, all of those rules were thrown out. That is why we are here today. I and my colleagues are saying that we want to go back to the protections of the internet that are called ``net neutrality'' to make sure that the FCC--instead of a passive entity that just OKs every charge that cable companies want to do--says: These are rules about not slowing down content, not engaging in

monopolistic behavior. These things are wrong, and we are going to be the policeman on the beat.

The FCC can protect consumers and innovators, and they can make sure that internet traffic does not violate an open internet. But, as I said, the Trump-era FCC is trying to throw out these strong rules, and cable companies are already--already--starting to raise prices for higher speed.

In Vancouver, WA, Comcast recently announced that higher speed tiers would be available but only to consumers who purchase expensive paid TV-internet bundles. That is why we are here. Because while it sounds like: Why do we want to give cable companies the opportunity to throttle, block, or create paid prioritization, we also have to realize that today the internet economy is so much bigger than it has ever been; that it is a job creator and an innovator. In my State, it is 13 percent of our economy, and thousands of jobs that continue to grow every day as new applications for the internet are created.

It is so important that businesses, which are even using these apps to help run their businesses more efficiently, continue to get access to those tools. But what about an internet in which a cable provider decided to artificially slow down that website and thereby create a disincentive for the very things that are helping to make our businesses more efficient?

So we want to make sure that the FCC does its original job. What is that? Well, they are there to promote development and adaptation of communication networks in the public interest. They are serving consumers, and that is the center of their mission.

The center of their mission should not be serving cable companies. That is why courts have said to the FCC: If you want to have the authority to protect an open internet, you have to do that under title II. Basically, the court explained that if enforcing open internet principles and being a watchdog against abuses is important to the FCC's mission of promoting the deployment and adoption of communications in the public interest, then, those powers have to flow from title II of the Communications Act. So that is why the Obama-era FCC adopted those rules.

Today we know that the internet is a basic necessity. It provides access that helps our healthcare delivery system work, our education system work, our banking system work, shopping, and all sorts of things that make it a necessary tool in life today.

When a service is that essential and critical to individuals and communities and their economic success, we need to make sure that consumers have protections and to make sure that it is not abused.

In the United States, just three providers of internet access have about 70 percent of consumers. In any market with only a few players, it is essential that we protect businesses and consumers, and that is exactly what title II does. It helps to protect us from a cable company gouging and its close cousin--paid prioritization.

Title II makes sure that the barriers to entry are not erected so that entrepreneurs or startups that want to bring new products to market aren't artificially slowed down and a larger competitor that can pay more for it can continue the access.

Just recently, we had an event with Redfin, a company that is changing the real estate market in the Pacific Northwest by helping to drive down the cost to consumers for real estate purchases. They made it very clear that Redfin was able to develop today because it had an open internet and its consumers and business partners could connect to it. But in a world where they were just starting out new and they had to pay for prioritization to get good broadband service, they may not have been as successful.

These rules--title II--give expert agencies the tools to look behind the curtain and make sure that cable companies are providing the services that do not violate an open internet.

There is a reason that cable companies don't want to follow these rules. It is because they want to make more money. I get it. They want to make more money. But I would say that with 40 percent of Americans having no choice in whom they buy internet services from, we have to be much more vigilant. These companies have several vertically integrated companies at the top, and they are seeking to amass more and more content. That could give them the tools, again, to block content, to slow it down, or to x out a competitor if they so choose. I do not want to see the FCC sitting on the sidelines and not policing this kind of environment.

I know that AT&T is now trying to merge with Time Warner. These large companies want to continue to amass content and to drive the marketplace. The American Consumer Satisfaction Index tracks consumer satisfaction, and these big companies are at an all-time low. Do consumers think they are going to do the right thing on their own? Do they think cable companies will do that?

The cable industry ranks at the very bottom of 43 industries in consumer satisfaction. In fact, it has been in the dead-last position for 5 years. So does the public think they are doing the right things when it comes to them or their businesses? I think that survey says it all. They have great concern.

One of the reasons cable companies give for why they don't want to follow net neutrality rules is because they say it will hurt their investment in networks. Well, I guess I would ask the question: Did the Obama-era FCC rules slow down investment? No, they didn't. The big cable companies continued to make investments in their networks.

In the year immediately following the FCC rule that went into place, the entire industry showed that the total capital expenditures increased by more than $550 million above the previous year's investment. For example, in a 2017 earnings report, Comcast, the Nation's largest broadband provider, noted that its capital expenditures increased 7.5 percent to $9 billion and that it continued to make deployment in platforms like X1 and wireless gateways.

Likewise, AT&T spent $22 billion on capital investments, up $20 billion from the previous year.

In fact, 2016 represents the industry's highest single-year jump in broadband network investment since 1999.

So the notion that they are somehow going to slow down on investment is just not true. The historic growth came after companies had a full year to digest the impacts of title II and net neutrality rules being put in place by the Obama-era FCC.

So where are we today? Well, these companies continue to make money, and they want a free pass on continuing to make more. That is why our goal is not the profits of big cable companies. Our goal is to make sure that the internet economy continues to grow and the juggernaut of job creation and innovation continues to expand.

We want the internet ecosystem that has doubled as a percentage of GDP from 2007 to 2017 to continue to grow. As I said, in my State it is about 13 percent of our State's economy, and I spend practically every day in the Senate hearing about another innovation from someone in my State. It might be the farm economy and more efficient ways to produce products or get products to market or manage their livestock. It might be in telemedicine and helping someone from one side of the State to the other to get access to care. It might be as basic as connecting people to their families and loved ones, but it is the internet that we know today that is so integral to our lives.

I hope the commonsense legislation in front of us--the CRA--which would restore those Obama-era FCC net neutrality rules, passes. I hope our colleagues will understand that getting exorbitant internet fees from cable providers is not the direction the American people want to go. American entrepreneurs, innovators, and consumers cannot afford to take that hit. What they want to see is an open internet--one that continues to allow so much more of the internet economy to flourish.

Let's make sure that we say to the FCC: We don't want you folding or sitting on your hands. We want you to police the internet, and we want you to have the rules to do it.

That is why we must pass the CRA today. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us, because there is just too much at stake in our innovation economy.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Markey, Wyden, and Hassan, on the floor to add my name to a resolution to overturn the FCC's decision, which is ill-advised and very wrong as it relates to growing an innovation economy.

The internet is one of our most important national economic drivers. In 2017, our internet economy produced more than $1 trillion in output and created nearly 200,000 new jobs. In my State, Washington, it has provided a platform for new innovation across many platforms and applications. As a result, 13 percent of our economy is based on innovation and technology. This economic activity supports 250,000 jobs. To say that the FCC's stymieing of the internet is acceptable is fighting words for the State of Washington.

From increasing access to healthcare, such as telemedicine, to making sure we find more affordable healthcare, to reforestation after natural disasters--the internet is providing great tools and solutions for all of these things.

Last week, several companies from my State joined me in expressing opposition to the FCC and calling on Congress to pass this congressional resolution sponsored by my colleague Senator Markey and all of the Democrats. These companies know this resolution is important.

Redfin, an internet company based in Seattle, is trying to address new ways of doing real estate business. It is a full-service real estate online tool that has helped save $400 million in how we process home sales.

Another company, Deja vu Security, spoke about how, if you really want to be great on attacking cyber intrusion, you need to know when it happens, not after the fact or after a 20-minute delay because you are not paying the highest rates.

Seattle-based DroneSeed uses drone technology to help reforest lands after natural disasters.

All of those companies joined me in saying that they wanted to see the FCC's actions overturned and that they wanted this resolution to pass. Why? Because they know this is a big part of our economy.

Tech innovators got to where they are by having an open internet and a level playing field. This really is about cable versus the internet. It is about big cable companies that want to charge more to consumers and businesses versus startups and individuals who want access to these new applications.

Just three big cable companies control access to the internet for 70 percent of Americans, and over the past decade, the prices that Americans pay these kinds of companies have risen almost twice as fast as inflation. What the FCC is doing is giving cable companies the ability to raise your rates even more. That is what this debate is all about.

I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will at least take a chance and look at this and understand that by giving all of that power to three big cable companies, they are going to charge more for internet access; that charging more or slowing down service for people who won't pay will have an undue impact on consumers and the economy. That is why we are out here fighting, because so much of the internet economy is based on an open internet, so much of a rural economy that is helping us grow jobs in rural parts of the United States or even just our ag economy that depends so much on current internet information as decisions are made. Are our farmers going to be charged more because they aren't willing to pay the cable rate that you wanted?

I join my colleagues in saying let's pass this congressional resolution that basically says there has to be a free and open internet. Let's get back to the innovation and the creation of more jobs, not artificially slowing down the internet and giving a big win to cable companies.

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