Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to call attention to several urgent and bipartisan health programs that Congress must renew without further delay.

The Republican majority has spent much of this year trying to pass partisan healthcare and tax legislation. As a result, they have neglected to extend numerous uncontroversial healthcare programs, threatening these programs' very existence and causing needless chaos and uncertainty.

It is past time that the Republican-controlled Congress extend these programs to provide healthcare access and certainty to millions of Americans.

First, I would like to address the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. CHIP is a bipartisan healthcare success story. Enacted 20 years ago, thanks to the leadership of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and the late Senator Ted Kennedy, CHIP brings affordable health coverage to children in families who are not eligible for Medicaid but struggle to afford private insurance.

Washington's successful CHIP program, Apple Health for Kids, covers about 60,000 children. Through CHIP, parents get peace of mind, and States and the Federal Government pitch in to share the cost.

CHIP means affordable healthcare for 9 million children. On average, a family of four pays $158 per year in premiums and deductibles for each CHIP-enrolled child. The same family would likely pay more than $1,000 in annual out-of-pocket costs on a commercial insurance plan, even after counting available financial help. That is a difference of more than $800 per year for millions of families across the country and represents real affordability.

Because of CHIP, children have a medical home. In fact, more than 90 percent of Washington children with CHIP coverage visited a primary care

provider at least once in 2014, the most recent year in which data were available. CHIP also provides kids with benefits that are often more comprehensive than those offered in the commercial insurance market, including immunizations, periodic screenings, hearing exams, and dental care. We know that prevention and early detection are key to reducing the burden of disease and health costs. CHIP emphasizes these early interventions during the critical early years of a child's life, helping kids grow up to be healthy, productive, and successful adults.

Yet, despite CHIP's near-universal popularity and lack of partisan controversy, this Congress has allowed CHIP to go unfunded since October 1, 2017. This long and unprecedented lapse threatens CHIP's very survival. Already, it has thrown States, including Washington, into crippling uncertainty and administrative disruption. Some States have been forced to send letters to CHIP families informing them that their coverage will end. Moreover, if Congress fails to extend CHIP, my State will be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to make up for Congress's failure to act.

Next, I would like to highlight the urgent need to reauthorize funding to community health centers.

Community health centers are a bedrock of the healthcare safety net and are the preferred medical home for tens of millions of working Americans. Washington's 26 community health centers serve 1 million people in every corner of my State, from Spokane to Seattle, Omak to Port Angeles.

Community health centers are a lean and efficient healthcare delivery model, focusing on primary care, prevention, case management and social services for their patients. They are also good for the economy, supporting more than 9,000 jobs and $1 billion in annual economic output in my State alone.

The Community Health Center Fund, which comprises the majority of these health centers' Federal funds, expired on October 1, 2017. As a result, community health centers in my State are at risk of having to turn off the lights and turn away patients. Already, the expiration of the Community Health Center Fund has threatened these centers' ability to retain and hire nurses and doctors and make financial arrangements for the coming year.

The Community Health Center Fund was enacted in 2010 so that millions of newly covered Americans would have a medical home. The fund is doing just that. Moreover, the Community Health Center Fund was extended with strong bipartisan support in 2015, when an overwhelming majority of the House and Senate, myself included, supported its extension as part of the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act, MACRA. It is past time for Congress to extend this program without delay.

In addition, Federal funds have been allowed to expire for a number of additional but equally important health programs. All enjoy a history of strong bipartisan support. These programs include the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, the Special Diabetes Program, the Teaching Health Center Program, and certain Medicare provisions.

The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting--MIECHV-- Program is an evidence-based grant that is helping States and Tribes improve early childhood and maternal health. MIECHV-funded home visiting programs, which are voluntary, have benefited 1,650 Washington families in 15 counties and have reduced in half the likelihood of child abuse and neglect. MIECHV is a prime example of evidence-driven policymaking that is improving the health and well-being of vulnerable mothers and children. It is also strongly bipartisan. Unfortunately, MIECHV's Federal funding expired on October 1, 2017.

The Special Diabetes Program and the Special Diabetes Program for Indians are modest investments with a proven track record of combatting diabetes. As a senior member of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I recognize that diabetes is a leading cause of death and a major driver of healthcare costs. In particular, the Special Diabetes Program for Indians supports 27 community-driven grant programs in Washington's Tribal communities, helping Tribal members prevent, diagnose, and manage this condition through lifestyle changes, counseling, and treatment.

The Teaching Health Center Program is also a small investment with a big return. Teaching Health Center funds are currently being used to train 722 primary care medical residents in 27 States and the District of Columbia. Data show that many physicians eventually practice close to where they train, and the Teaching Health Center Program is training physicians where they are needed most. In Spokane, Toppenish, Tacoma, Yakima, and Auburn, Teaching Health Centers are training a new generation of safety-net physicians to serve those most in need. While the Teaching Health Center Program has received a short-term extension, its funding will expire on January 1, 2018, if Congress does not act.

Lastly, several temporary Medicare provisions have expired and must be renewed. These provisions help rural Medicare patients get hospital, ambulance, and home health services where they live. Additional Medicare ``extenders'' prevent essential services like physical therapy from being arbitrarily capped for Medicare patients. Extending these provisions is important to preserving healthcare access in rural Washington State and empowering our healthcare delivery system to continue to improve and innovate.

The programs I have highlighted and many more are vital to my constituents, my State's economy, and our healthcare delivery system. They are also strongly bipartisan. I call on my Republican colleagues to work with us in a good-faith negotiation to extend these programs immediately.

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

Madam President, today we are closing in on a critical decision that will have a lasting impact on the innovation-driven economy of the United States. The Chairman of the FCC has decided to repeal a critical consumer protection known as net neutrality. This is a wrongheaded move. It is misguided. It is being driven by big cable interests that want to continue to gouge consumers and charge them more, making sure that consumers either pay or have their internet lines slowed down.

This decision turns the success of what has been an essential 21st- century innovation over to those in big corporations, instead of making sure that Main Street innovators continue to do what they do best. I don't think the American people want cable companies to be the gatekeeper on the internet. They want to have the FCC continue to play a role in making sure that an open internet is there for all, so that small businesses, entrepreneurs, and innovators can continue to build on the success of communicating with their consumers and their business partners without having artificially slowed-down lines.

Who would this impact if the FCC moves forward?

You could say that seniors would be impacted with regard to receiving their telehealth medicine and that students would be impacted in the slowing down of their education. Families who access educational tools for their children could also see charges, and the open highway that has been so important in making sure that new internet businesses are started could be impacted.

The No. 1 reason we have to fight this decision--making sure that we do everything we can to stop the FCC from implementing this rule and giving consumers the protection of net neutrality--is that it will harm our internet economy. Last summer we had a townhall meeting about this, where I heard from many of my constituents. I then sent in many business cases to Chairman Pai so that he would understand why this impacts us so much.

Let's make sure that we understand what is happening. The FCC had rules that had prevented companies from throttling, or blocking, and it had paved the way for many great successes. In the United States, we have Fortune 500 companies and a tech industry that is responsible for 7 percent of our Nation's GDP and 6.9 million jobs in the United States of America.

Why would you change the rules now? Why would you leave after having made sure critical protections were in place and, instead, replace them with the ability for certain companies--cable, specifically--to wreak havoc on this economy?

Thirteen percent of Washington State's economy depends on a healthy internet sector. The internet economy for our State supports 250,000 jobs, and at a time when the Nation has not had enough wage growth, these tech jobs have been a bedrock for the middle class.

Chairman Pai is clearly not focused on the 250,000 jobs and the 13 percent of our State's economy. Just this past weekend, I and my colleague, Congresswoman DelBene, met with many of these small businesses. Their message was loud and clear: Please stop Chairman Pai from ruining the internet by taking away key protections that make sure our businesses run successfully.

Chairman Pai is abdicating his role. He is abandoning the consumers whom he has sworn an oath to serve, and he is turning his back on innovators. He has really changed the direction for us and our innovation economy. I know that he thinks this is a light touch, but I guarantee you that it is a ``no touch'' regulation. What we need is to make sure that these companies do not artificially charge consumers, small businesses, and Main Street more for what they already are doing now and doing successfully. Obviously, an open internet rule and the rules that we are living under now have fueled an innovation economy. Every business plan of every startup relies on the company's ability to be able to contact its consumers.

With this much of our economy at stake, let's not continue to make mistakes. Let's continue to fight here in the Senate and make sure that we stop Chairman Pai and the FCC from having the resources to implement this rule. It is so important now that we continue to fight for small businesses, for Main Street entrepreneurs, and for the innovation economy.

We deserve to have an open internet. As the small businesses and innovators just said to me this past weekend in Seattle, this is really like siding with the big companies and saying that they are going to make all of the decisions, that they are the ones that are going to be in control. They are not going to be for competition, and they are not going to be for this level of innovation. They are going to slow down what is one of the best parts of our economy.

I hope that our colleagues will join the fight and stop the FCC, in any manner possible, from implementing what is, literally, a very, very anticompetitive strategy and one that is very, very focused on big corporations, instead of the innovation economy of the future.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Department of the Interior is the steward and guardian of our public lands--our national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. As the Supreme Court said more than a century ago, it is the Secretary of the Interior's responsibility to see that none of the public domain is given away to anyone who is not entitled to it.

As the steward and guardian of the public lands, the Secretary must represent the government and the people of the Nation as a whole, not the special interests or even the interests of a single State. But the Secretary does not do his job alone; he has delegated his authority and responsibility for land and minerals management to the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. The Assistant Secretary exercises the Secretary's direction and supervision over the Bureau of Land Management. The Assistant Secretary needs to be someone who can discharge this important duty fairly and impartially. Equally important, though, he must be seen by the American people as someone capable of being a good steward of their public lands and not as someone who comes to the job with a predisposition to dispose of their public lands to special interests.

An impartial and unbiased decision-maker is a core element of the due process. The principle that no one can be the judge in his own case has been a hallmark of Anglo-American law for over 400 years. I believe confirming Mr. Balash to be Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management would be contrary to this principle.

In 2014, Alaska's Department of Natural Resources filed a claim for 20,000 acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with the Bureau of Land Management. Alaska's Department of Natural Resources sought to remove the long-recognized boundary of the Refuge. It asked the Bureau of Land Management to convey the 20,000 acres of Refuge land that would then be outside the Refuge's boundary to the State of Alaska so that those lands could then be leased for oil and gas development.

Mr. Balash was the head of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources at the time it made its claim to the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management properly rejected Alaska's claim. Alaska appealed the Bureau's decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, where the appeal is now pending. If the Senate confirms Mr. Balash to be the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, he will be overseeing the Bureau of Land Management. He will exercise the Secretary's direction and supervision over the Bureau of Land Management. He will be in a position of reversing the Bureau of Land Management's decision which originally denied Alaska's claim.

Moreover, Secretary Zinke has the authority to take jurisdiction of the case away from the Board of Land Appeals and to delegate that authority to decide the case to Mr. Balash. Mr. Balash may become the Interior Department's judge in the case that he initiated as Alaska's commissioner of natural resources.

That is my main concern. I asked Mr. Balash his plans to recuse himself from participating in the Department's consideration of Alaska's claim. I believe Mr. Balash thinks that he will comply with whatever the department's ethics office says the rules are--which is basically a 1-year recusal from being involved in that situation. That said, Mr. Balash, even under these current rules, could be in the position of being the final arbiter on a case he previously brought on expanding Alaska's claim to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He alone could make the decision. He alone could reverse the decision on the State of Alaska's claim to the Bureau of Land Management--a claim that was turned down. He could reverse that. For that reason, I am not supporting Mr. Balash's nomination to this position today.

There are so many things that we have right now that are an unrelenting assault on our public lands and our environment by this administration, and there are many on the other side of the aisle who are supporting that. We have seen an unprecedented use of the extraordinary procedures of the Congressional Review Act to nullify carefully crafted rules to protect the public lands and environment. We have seen the Secretary of the Interior unlawfully postpone implementation of other lawful rules. We have witnessed and seen legislation on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge run through here without the proper processes and procedures. We saw the majority use the extraordinary procedure of budget reconciliation not to balance the budget, as it was intended, but to circumvent regular order. Only this week, we witnessed President Trump launch an unprecedented and unlawful assault on our national monuments. Mr. Balash, I fear, will become maybe an unwilling but nonetheless a participant in these assaults on our public lands. That is why I cannot at this point give my support to this nomination.

I know my colleague from Alaska has worked with him. I respect his opinion on this position. I hope he will respect mine. I do not think that at this point in time, without a better recusal, I can support Mr. Balash's nomination.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with my colleague from Maryland to talk about the State and local tax deduction.

I thank the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee for his hard work on trying to articulate what is fair tax policy for Americans. Senator Wyden and I come from parts of the country with probably some of the most unique tax codes. He doesn't have a sales tax in Oregon. We don't have an income tax in Washington.

We are not an expensive tax State. We are not an expensive tax State. There are other States such as Texas, Nevada, and Florida that also don't have an income tax. Under this bill, those States and the citizens of those States, like many others, are going to be penalized. Middle-class Americans are going to have their taxes raised to give a tax break to corporations.

So while we might want to discuss what is fair tax policy as it relates to the competitiveness of our economy, the good news for the people of the State of Washington is that we have very competitive businesses, whether it is Microsoft or Amazon or Starbucks or Costco or Boeing. They are all working hard. They are all working in multiple places, and yes, they are all doing really, really well.

The question is, Do we need to reduce their corporate rate so significantly, and to do so, take money out of the pockets of middle- class families across the United States of America?

The reason I mention Senator Wyden and the States of Oregon and Washington, is that, even though we have a unique tax code, our State's economy has grown faster than the national average every year since World War II. That is to say, the uniqueness of our tax code has not hurt us, and yet in the State of Washington we have had the highest minimum wage for a long time in the United States. Now we are raising it in various parts of our State. We have had a unique view of where our revenue should come from.

Why now? Why now? After 100 years of tax deductibility by taxpayers in this country, why are you taking away their ability to deduct only to give a tax break to corporations that are making record profits? After 100 years, why are you doing this?

Well, I think some of my colleagues have said it best. They have called it double-taxation. You are going ahead after 100 years and saying it is OK to tax the same amount that we pay to the State that you also are going to tax at the Federal level. As one article mentioned, ``Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers said the Federal Government might try to monopolize taxation to the entire exclusion and destruction of State governments.''

That is right. Our Founding Fathers said: Do not have double taxation. So for 100 years--100 years--we protected the citizens of this country. Yet someone over there is thinking: Do you know what? I need $1.4 trillion. Where can I get it? Let's do it on the backs of middle-class families, because they might not notice until 2019 when their tax bill comes and they have a different equation.

I get that my colleagues think they have solved this problem by getting rid of the deductions and now all of a sudden giving you a double standard deduction. I have done the math. I have done the math for us in Washington State, and over 300,000 people in Washington will see their taxes go up immediately, probably paying anywhere from $750 to $1,000 more in taxes. Is that fair? They are sitting in the shadow of these large companies who are making record profits and doing quite well, asking why are they the funders of this tax break. Why are they? Why are we getting rid of a policy that has existed in our country for over 100 years and penalizing them just to give this corporate break?

I can tell you I don't buy the notion that this is going to trickle down to productivity and wage growth. I know what is driving productivity and wage growth in my State. It is a great, educated, skilled workforce. It is staying ahead of innovation whether it is making software or new ways of doing business, and, yes, it is a constant challenge. Those businesses tell me all the time we need more infrastructure, we need more affordable housing, we need a better transportation system, we need better education. So they are very concerned about the ideas in this legislation.

So you are going to tax immediately about 300,000 Washingtonians with a higher tax rate and, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and other entities, probably by the time this is done, at the end of this bill, over a million Washingtonians are going to pay more money. That is why I am so concerned, along with other States that have been fighting this battle for so long. Why now? Why now? What is the urgency that you are taking away the ability of my citizens to deduct their local sales tax, their property tax, and, in the House case, other expenses, whether they are medical or education or their mortgage? It is just beyond me, when the middle class has suffered so much and has not recovered from the downturn in the economy, that you think the best economic strategy is to take money out of the middle-class taxpayer.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Governors Association from Governor Sandoval from Nevada. I mentioned they don't have an income tax. They are highly sensitive to this issue.

Mr. President, their letter says that the deductibility of State and local taxes has been a part of their stability, and they are about meeting the needs of their citizens.

So the notion that we have the National Governors Association, the homebuilders, the Realtors, so many people concerned about this is falling on deaf ears. I guarantee you it will not fall on deaf ears when the citizens have a chance to respond to this.

The notion that we not only are taking away this ability to deduct, but we are also in this legislation making a change to the way inflation is calculated, what is called Chained CPI--I am not going to bother to explain the details to you, but I will tell you this. It will change your tax bracket, and you will be in a higher tax bracket. So besides giving you less deductibility, they are changing a formula and making you pay more taxes.

This bill needs to slow down. It needs to focus on what will help our economy grow, and economists don't believe this bill is going to do much to help the economy grow. It is going to give those corporations money to pay for dividends. Seventy-five to eighty percent will go to their shareholders, and those shareholders and the stock market will do well.

What we also need to focus on is the investment that middle-class families need to stay in their home, to make education affordable, to pay for healthcare, and to have communities work. The fact is, the Fraternal Order of Police is also against this legislation because of taking away of this local deductibility. It is like Hamilton said: Why are you doing this at a Federal level? I thought the other side of the aisle was the States' rights people? I thought they were there to protect the uniqueness of the Tax Code to say that States have rights, to say that States ought to be able to decide their own future. Well, after 100 years, you are taking that away today, and you are going to hear from the citizens of this country who are upset that they have to pay higher taxes just to give these very successful companies a corporate tax break.

I yield to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. President, my amendment strikes the title requiring oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is the largest refuge in our Nation and the last pristine ecosystem for the Arctic in North America.

Requiring oil development in the heart of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be in this bill.

Although the bill text has been changed to address Byrd Rule violations, the Congressional Budget Office continues to estimate that it will raise less than $1 billion over 10 years.

Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling doesn't even meet the $1 billion reconciliation instruction.

It certainly doesn't represent a serious offset to huge deficits in the Republican bill.

To put this in perspective, this represents less than seven one- hundredths of 1 percent of the $1.5-trillion-dollar increase in the national debt that the Republican tax policies will cause.

Drilling in the Arctic has nothing to do with serious budgetary policy, but it has everything to do with evading regular order to pass something that could never be enacted on its own.

In addition to drilling in the Arctic refuge, this bill would sell 7 million barrels of oil from our Nation's strategic petroleum reserve.

A portion of that sale is necessary simply to meet the committee's reconciliation instructions. The sale of oil from the reserve would also provide for a $300 million windfall to four States: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

So this bill is selling off oil from our strategic petroleum reserve in order to pay for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It doesn't make any sense.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the crown jewels of the national wildlife refuge system.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the refuge, describes it as ``the only conservation system unit that protects, in an undisturbed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystems in North America.''

It is home to an incredible diversity of wildlife: 47 different species of mammals, including polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, Dall's sheep, moose, musk-ox, and the Porcupine caribou herd.

The refuge provides important habitat for over 40 species of fish and more than 200 species of migratory birds whose lives depend on the Arctic refuge.

The refuge was first established by the Eisenhower administration. Congress later protected this amazing Arctic ecosystem in 1980. It did so specifically to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat in its natural diversity.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is known as the Last Great Wilderness and is truly one of our last great wild places.

But the provisions of this bill turn the purpose of the Arctic refuge on its head.

It would make oil and gas development on the refuge's coastal plain one of the statutory purposes of the wildlife refuge.

Under this bill, our Nation's most pristine national wildlife refuge will become the only refuge where oil and gas development is required by law.

It opens up the entire 1.5-million-acre coastal plain for oil and gas exploration and requires leasing of at least 800,000 acres.

It requires leasing of areas with the highest oil and gas potential, no matter the consequences for wildlife or the environment.

The bill requires that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be managed as a petroleum reserve, which is unprecedented and undercuts managing the refuge for wildlife.

The bill includes no clear requirements to comply with environmental laws or to protect wildlife. Its sponsors, however, say they are not preempting environmental laws, and that, in fact, laws like the National Environmental Policy Act will ``fully apply.''

Given the assurances that environmental and wildlife refuge laws will continue to apply, I do not understand why their bill adds oil development as a purpose of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Adding oil development as a purpose of the refuge seems contrary to its primary purpose, which is to protect wildlife.

What a no-brainer: The purpose of a wildlife refuge is to protect wildlife. Refuges must be managed that way.

At every other national wildlife refuge in the country, development within the refuge is only permitted to the extent it is compatible with the primary purpose of the refuge: protecting wildlife.

But because the bill makes oil and gas development a refuge purpose, oil drilling in the refuge will no longer be subject to a meaningful ``compatibility determination.''

This bill essentially waives one of the most important management protections that applies to every other national wildlife refuge.

They have to do this because they know that oil and gas isn't compatible with protecting wildlife--it is just the opposite.

This bill does not provide energy security. There is no prohibition in the bill against exporting oil from the Arctic refuge. In all likelihood, much of this oil will end up being exported.

The Republican majority agreed to include only one amendment during the Energy Committee's consideration of this issue, and that amendment required the sale of 5 million barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve to give $300 million to the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

The bill has now been amended to require the sale of 7 million barrels from our strategic petroleum reserve.

So at the same time as we are being told we need to ruin a pristine national wildlife refuge to drill for more oil, the very same bill is selling off millions of barrels out of our strategic oil reserve, which was used most recently during this hurricane season to protect Americans from gas price spikes.

The impact of oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the danger to its wildlife cannot be overstated. The importance of the refuge for wildlife such as polar bears and caribou have been documented in letters I have received from biologists and other scientists who have worked in the Arctic.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record.

The Arctic Refuge's coastal plain and nearby waters are designated as critical habitat for polar bears, which were designated as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. Female polar bears head to this area every fall to create snow dens where they give birth to their young.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is also famously known as the summer calving grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd. The herd's range extends into Canada. A treaty between our countries protects the herd and its habitat.

The almost 200,000-member herd has an annual migration of hundreds of miles--and in some cases thousands of miles--wintering south of the refuge.

These caribou are an important food source for many Alaska Natives, but in particular the Gwich'in people, who live south of the refuge. Wildlife biologists argue that the risk to the caribou herd--and those who rely on this herd--could be quite significant.

Do you know what Webster's definition of stewardship is? The careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care. Since 1960, under President Eisenhower, this iconic refuge has been protected. Tonight, unless you help strike this, you will be joining the ranks of those that believe in polluting a wildlife refuge, and you will be joining an administration that I guarantee you is going to go down in history as getting an F in stewardship.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is too special and important; it is one of the crown jewels of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

We should not destroy this pristine landscape and allow it to be turned into an oil field.

I want to remind my colleagues of the words of the great environmental steward Olaus Murie.

After decades of scientific exploration in Alaska, Olaus testified in the Senate in 1959 in support of creating the Arctic refuge.

He said, ``We long for something more, something that has a mental, a spiritual impact on us. This idealism, more than anything else, will set us apart as a nation striving for something worthwhile in the universe.''

What is setting us apart today, colleagues, is just the opposite. We are striving for short-term gains.

In a hundred years, when the economic effects of this tax bill are long forgotten, we will still bear the blame for letting go of ``something worthwhile in the universe.''

We didn't create the Arctic coastal plain, and we cannot recreate, but we can surely destroy it.

I urge my colleagues to oppose sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and to support removing this provision from the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I come to the floor to speak right now because I know our colleagues are trying to move forward next week on some various proposals that are part of the tax package. I am very concerned and remain very concerned about the measures within the policy that raise taxes on middle-class families because I don't think we should be passing a tax bill that raises taxes on middle-class families. For me, in Washington, obviously, it is a big concern. We don't have an income tax. They are getting rid of our local deductions that are so meaningful to us.

Literally, we have done calculations--and I know there will be calculations in other States--that show you are literally raising taxes on middle-class families to give a tax break to corporations that, in some cases, aren't asking for them or certainly are not paying that corporate rate today.

I think we can do better than these policies. I certainly think we can do better than the policies that are going to be before the Energy Committee next week, if the information we are hearing now or getting word of is that my colleague on the Energy Committee, the Senator from Alaska, is going to propose literally getting rid of

the wildlife refuge as a refuge and basically the purposes for the refuge and instead saying that drilling would happen and thereby destroy the refuge.

I know today there are going to be scientists from across the country who are going to give word and testament to the fact that it is too dangerous to have drilling in the same place as a wildlife refuge, that they cannot coexist, that it will destroy the refuge. Apparently, that is what my colleague from Alaska already believes because she is now going to say that to do drilling, you have to change the status of the refuge.

I definitely believe there are much better ways in America to get revenue than basically destroying the wildlife habitat of caribou and of Arctic wildlife that is so treasured in the United States of America.

I certainly think there are better ways to do it than raising taxes on middle-class families, in both my State and your State that don't have an income tax and would rather continue to have the deductibility. I hope our colleagues will look at both of these ideas and go back to the drawing board. It is not where we need to be. We need to be protecting things that are so near and dear to us.

We definitely don't need to fund tax breaks for millionaires by destroying wildlife habitat. Instead, we should be going back to the drawing board on things that are going to help our economy grow in the future.

I hope the public is well aware that this is kind of dark-of-night tactics, where they want us to leave town on Thursday night only to come back on Monday and start in on a tax policy we haven't even seen. We haven't even seen the language yet.

I think we can do better than to have a rush-rush approach to give tax breaks to corporations and certainly not do it on the backs of working-class families in America--taking away from them viable deductions for education, for housing, for property taxes, for expenditures that they make. We can do better than to leave here and come back on Monday to rush-rush a tax break for corporations while raising taxes on middle-class families and destroying a wildlife refuge that scientists say is so important to our ecology to keep.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the affordable housing crisis that is gripping our Nation. When I say ``crisis,'' I mean I know that people here are on the precipice of talking about what we are going to do in response to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma and Maria, and I would like to say, the housing crisis that will exist in the aftermath of those hurricanes is real, but there are also even greater implications from the housing crisis that exist today without those hurricanes, and it is only going to continue to grow and get worse until we deal with it.

This past February, more than 2,000 families packed into the New Holly Gathering Hall in South Seattle. Each family was hoping to hear its name called. It wasn't a contest. It wasn't a game. It wasn't the lottery. It was a lottery to see if families could get affordable homes.

The Mercy Othello Plaza would soon open 108 affordable housing units. That is hardly a match for the more than 2,000 families who were interested in trying to get into one of those affordable units. Based on the numbers alone, their chance of getting an affordable home was lower than an applicant's chance of getting into Harvard.

Ninety-five percent of the families attending that night left disappointed, continuing to search for affordable housing. This is just one story of how the affordable housing crisis is gripping our Nation. I am sure every one of my colleagues in the Senate could talk about a story they have heard in their State because this crisis impacts every State. It impacts every community, both urban and rural alike.

As I have traveled across the State of Washington, I have seen some of the most hard-hit areas for affordable housing. I even have veterans returning home not being able to find affordable housing. I have seen an aging population living longer and also not having the resources when looking for affordable housing. I have seen young workers who want to be close to where their employment is and yet having to drive so far away because that is the only place they could find affordable housing. We have seen homelessness in numbers that harken back to previous days when we had a true recession.

The most damning part of the housing crisis is, we know how to solve it. We just need the courage to act.

For decades, the housing growth was the most stimulative part of our economy. Throughout the 1980s, housing was 18 percent of GDP. Today that number has dropped to just 15 percent. When people discuss tax reform and GDP growth, housing is still one of the ways that economists will tell us that we can grow GDP.

In the sixties, seventies, and eighties, if somebody asked, How do we stimulate our economy, usually a cheer would go up for housing, but since the economic downturn, we haven't heard that cheer. In fact, it is almost as if we have forgotten how stimulative housing is to our economy.

The total number of houses built between 2007 and 2016 total just 8.9 million units, which is far below the 15 million-plus average for every 10-year period through the seventies and nineties. We are off the pace of what it takes to provide affordable housing. As a result, the vacancy rates and inventories of homes for sale have also fallen. The national vacancy rate--which is the number of homes for sale--has receded to the 2000 level, erasing all the runup we saw in the housing boom. Moreover, homeownership in the United States is now at its lowest rate since the 1960s.

Twenty million American families, including 11 million renters, are now spending more than half of their income on housing. That means less money for other essentials like food and healthcare and gas.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition tells us that 7.4 million more available affordable homes are needed because we have seen an increase of 60 percent since the year 2000 in the need for affordable housing.

So the United States has become a rent-burdened economy. If we don't address this crisis, the problem is only going to get worse. In fact, one study found that if we don't address this crisis, we are going to see another 25-percent increase in the number of Americans spending more than half of their income in rent.

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the House of Representatives are talking about what they want to do in tax reform. I would say they should look at this data as it relates to where we are with homeownership and housing and things that would eliminate the private activity bonds--one of the key drivers of affordable housing production. It would be a big mistake if they got rid of that. Obviously, there are units of affordable housing that are being planned and built right now. In fact, one estimate is that over 1,000,000 units wouldn't be completed just because of the House provision.

Obviously, limiting the mortgage interest deduction for new homeowners could potentially increase taxes on homeowners and thereby limit the number of people who could afford a home. Almost one-third of taxpayers nationally claim the property tax deductions. They could also see an impact to that. I hope our House colleagues and our Senate colleagues will see, in light of the housing crisis, what a terrible idea those things are.

How did we get to this crisis as it exists now? Part of the issue was demand. For starters, the 2007 housing crash pushed millions of families into the rental market and reduced wages on working families. The demand for rental housing skyrocketed.

Over 7 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure, and they demanded more affordable places to live. Today the homeownership rate is the lowest in our Nation since the 1960s. The last 10 years have seen the largest gain of renters on record. The demand for rental housing shows no sign of slowing down.

Millennials, like many of the young people we see who want to be close to jobs in our burgeoning economy, are forced to rent instead of own. They are seeing that challenged, in big numbers, by the fact that there is not enough supply.

At the same time demand was going up from returning veterans, from aging seniors, from workplace needs, from many more people needing affordable housing after being pushed out of the homeownership market-- at the same time demand was going up, supply failed to keep pace. Affordable housing stock is being, and was being, converted to market rate-based units. That means they got taken out of the affordability framework.

A new report found that the number of apartments being deemed affordable for low-income families dropped 60 percent over the last 6 years.

With all this pressure and demand of people falling out of home and back into the market and pushing things down, we saw so many units that were affordable units get transferred over to market-based rates and thereby losing supply.

The new production of affordable housing has not filled the gap, and production of affordable housing is at its lowest 10-year production rate on record since 1974. It, too, has played a role in this problem.

The combination of increased demand and lack of production has caused the explosion in our affordable housing crisis. The number of Americans facing extreme unaffordability--that means they are paying more than 50 percent--has gone from 7 million Americans to 11.2 million Americans. That is a 60-percent increase in the number of people in the United States who are in this area of extremely unaffordable rates for housing.

While I know we are going to discuss natural disasters and helping communities recover--everywhere from the families who have been impacted in Florida, in Texas, and various places--we also have to look at the issue of affordable housing everywhere from Seattle and Portland and San Francisco to all the way across the country, to Philadelphia and Miami and many other places.

In the aftermath of Katrina, Congress passed an expansion of the low- income housing tax credit, and it built 28,000 affordable units on the gulf. I know my colleagues will want to do something similar for Texas and the Gulf States to make sure we are doing something, but we need to understand that at the time of Katrina, there was a need due to more than 275,000 homes destroyed by that hurricane. Building 28,000 units was barely a blip.

The low-income housing tax credit helped rebuild some units, but it came nowhere close to solving the housing crisis in New Orleans. Market rates in New Orleans are 35 percent higher after the storm, and 37 percent of households are paying more than half of their income in housing. Now, 12 years later, another disaster has hit, and we are going to try to address this crisis, but the housing burden for extremely low-income families in Texas and the major metro areas of Texas is among some of the worst in the Nation. That was before the crisis. Before the actual impact of hurricanes, Texas was already at a crisis point.

Texas has only 29 affordable units for every 100 low-income households looking for those options. Houston is the third worst in the country for housing availability for extremely low-income people. Now families from Florida to Puerto Rico are going to also be finding a very difficult situation.

Expanding the tax credit could help, but we have to do more than just expand the tax credit for those disaster States. We need a very big systematic investment in affordable housing all across the United States, and expanding the low-income housing tax credit is one way to do that. The good news is, we have good bipartisan support for the low- income housing tax credit enacted in 1986. It helped build 3 million rental units across this country over the last 30 years. If you want to make a dent in this crisis, both in response to the hurricanes and the crisis that already existed, we need to begin filling that gap by increasing the credit.

That is why I joined Senator Hatch in introducing the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Improvement Act, something that would help us build hundreds of thousands of new units in the next 10 years. I am glad Senators Wyden, Portman, Sullivan, Merkley, Scott, Bennet, Collins, Kaine, Heller, Leahy, Shaheen, Murray, Schumer, Murkowski, Young, Graham, Schatz, Booker, Hassan, Isakson, and Sanders are all supporters.

We have good, bipartisan support from people who understand that this crisis is real and that it is only going to grow. But we also know that the additional tax credit would create almost 450,000 new jobs over the next 10 years. That is because housing is stimulative to the economy. Construction alone supports over 2 million jobs. And it helps by making sure that the economic impact to GDP is realized now through this investment.

It also helps us save money as an economy and a country by putting a roof over people's heads. One of the reasons I was so excited to work with Senator Hatch on this was because in his home State of Utah, they made such great progress in dealing with their homeless veteran population. The community decided that by putting a roof over someone's head, they actually helped lower overall costs. One study found that placing people in affordable housing lowered Federal Medicaid expenditures by an average of 12 percent, and a University of Pennsylvania study found that taxpayers could save $16,000 per homeless person who was placed in affordable housing.

So we need to act. We need to realize that housing provides an investment in job creation and has historically contributed between 2 to 4 percent of GDP growth since the 1980s; that it is an underpinning of our economy; and that we need to make sure that our Tax Code works and make sure that people are purchasing homes as well as finding affordable housing.

As our colleagues deal with the end-of-the-year policy issues and deal with our response to these storms, I hope we will realize that this underlying crisis also needs attention. We have worked on a bipartisan basis in the past to address it, and we can work on a bipartisan basis in the future to both stimulate our economy and solve these problems.

Ninety percent of the affordable housing units being built in the country use these tax credits, so it is only by extending the tax credits, putting a roof over people's heads, that we are going to be able to deal with this crisis. The good news is, it helps us save money and it helps us with GDP growth.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to talk about a GAO report, or a Government Accountability Office report, that is being released today, which says that the cost and impact to the Federal Government of climate change is in the billions of dollars. In fact, it is in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 5 years, and, over the next decade-plus, it is in the trillions of dollars.

Why is this so astounding? It is astounding because we have not had the Government Accountability Office outline for us before what the impacts of climate costs the U.S. taxpayers, what it costs the Federal Government, and that we are paying an astronomical cost. Right now we are discussing the supplemental, and we can see the costs of the damage we have experienced from storms, damage from wildfires, and damages from other kinds of events and how much it costs the Federal Government. The GAO took the last 2 years to develop this report after receiving a letter from me and Senator Collins of Maine to say that we wanted to understand these costs.

Why did we do this? The Senator from Maine and I have long been advocates of looking at issues of adaptation and mitigation. We can debate all we want about what people think the impacts are of climate and what drives it. What we are here today to say is that we know that it is costing billions of dollars, and, as stewards of the taxpayers' money, we ought to do a better job at adaptation and mitigation. That is why we sent the letter, and that is why, probably 7 or 8 years ago, she and I started working to try to encourage various agencies that are most impacted by this to do a better job at adaptation and mitigation.

For us in the Pacific Northwest, we got to this point because we saw a shellfish industry almost devastated by the level of ocean acidification caused by changes in temperature. It was so

much so that we had to help the shellfish industry with science and research. If we wanted to keep a shellfish industry, we had to look at the science behind the seeding and do it at specific times when there was the right chemistry balance in the water. This incredible economy is enjoyed by so many Americans. The Washington shellfish industry that we have--five generations, six generations of families in that industry--was almost lost because of these changes.

Also, as a State that has a great deal of hydropower and very cost- efficient electricity, a 1-degree temperature change means a lot too in terms of snowpack--20 percent less snowpack. It means a lot to us for the challenges we face in keeping affordable electricity rates.

When it comes to fire, we have certainly taken it on the chin with two unbelievable back-to-back fire years, with unfortunate loss of life and billions of dollars of economic loss impacting both the Federal Government and to local communities.

What we are saying is that we can do better. We need to recognize these costs and the impact and do a better job of planning for them in the future. That is why one of the things that I have done with my colleagues--Senator Murray from Washington, Senators Risch and Crapo from Idaho, and Senators Merkley and Wyden from Oregon--was to introduce a bill to help reduce our risk when it comes to fire seasons and what we can do to better protect our communities. That is the kind of planning and adaptation that we think we need to address.

Today's report cannot be ignored. It cannot be ignored that the Federal Government is going to have to spend this much money dealing with the impacts of climate. That is what the Government Accountability Office is saying. It says we need a better plan. We need to reduce costs. We need to look at these impacts and make sure that we as a nation are putting every resource into this. Otherwise, we really will be spending trillions of dollars.

That trajectory is real. That is what the GAO report says--hundreds of billions of dollars now and trillions in the future, but if we would simply recognize these impacts and start addressing them by having agencies recognize climate and plan for it, both in terms of adaptation and mitigation, I guarantee you that we can save the taxpayers money.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will heed this report. This report is saying that climate is impacting us, the Federal Government. It is costing us a great deal of money. I guarantee you that it is money we would rather have to focus on whatever issues my colleagues would like to focus on--whether it is education, job training, or any of the other issues that someone might want to address, such as healthcare. We cannot afford to continue to pay this kind of money while not dealing with climate.

Impacts and costs are only going to accelerate. That is the scary thing. The GAO report says these numbers are going to increase for the future. Can we at least sit down at the table and talk about the ways-- just like on fire, just like on flooding, just like on drought--to plan strategies for how we can work together to mitigate these impacts? I guarantee you, if we don't, this bill is going to continue to rise and the conflicts are going to get worse.

If you look at this year alone--even though I am saying it is $600 billion over the next 5 to 10 years and trillions over the next 20--we will probably see $300 billion in economic impacts in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico.

What is the conclusion I am drawing? I think the report is very clear. The research is very clear. One thing that is happening, as the climate changes, is that there are more intense weather events. These intense weather events are presenting challenges like we have never seen before. These challenges and the devastation that caused them are something that we need to take into consideration in the future.

Certainly, we need better science. We shouldn't rely on the European weather agency to give us the best, most accurate information about storms and weather. We should do that ourselves. We should use the great research that is being done at the labs in Tennessee on climate and what we can do to best prepare our Nation. We need to come to the table when it comes to the issues of drought and plan for strategies that work and work successfully now, not wait another 20 years and have the cost be even more astronomical.

I thank my colleague from Maine for joining this effort of getting this documentation by the Government Accountability Office. We need to take their accounting very seriously and start doing things that will help us reduce the risk, lower the cost, better protect our communities, and give the taxpayers a sense that we are not leaving them to devastation and storms every year but that we are coming up with better strategies to save lives and to save dollars.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1141, as provided under the previous order.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment simply raises a point of order on any legislation that modifies or eliminates State and local tax deductions. I know there are many States that have tax deductions from their Federal obligations on property, but I am specifically talking about States like Washington, Wyoming, Nevada, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee.

We have had the ability to itemize and deduct our sales tax from our Federal income tax. That has resulted in a savings to the taxpayers. Under the President's proposal of increasing the standard deduction, even for households between $50,000 and $70,000, if you repeal their ability to continue to itemize, even with the standard deduction, you are raising taxes on them. It will not be covered. The standard deduction is only $12,000. For that bracket in my State, they are deducting up to $23,000.

Please do not raise taxes on our constituents without a due process and a budget point of order that says that we are all going to be a part of this process and discussion before you take away a way for our citizens to save money.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, there is wide support for PILT from both Democrats and Republicans, as witnessed by this last vote. What we need to do now is to make sure that it works fairly for counties and is not done arbitrarily.

The CRS found that taking the approach in Senator Lee's amendment would break the PILT Program. Not only would calculating each county's payments be nearly impossible, the program would not be fair. In fact, the CRS cited a 2010 study that found that the approach in Senator Lee's amendment would result in two-thirds of all of the counties that receive PILT funding receiving lower payments than they do now.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. President, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the most pristine areas of the United States, and we have been protecting it for decades for a reason. The notion that tonight, after 60-plus years, we would give up what is a biologically important area, that is a critical habitat for polar bears, a breeding ground for caribou, migratory birds, and over 200 species--for what? For oil that we don't need.

We have had record oil production in the last 10 years--a 77-percent increase. The oil that we would get, we wouldn't get until 10 years from now, and it would supply oil for only 1 year in the United States. It is not worth it.

As Representative Mo Udall said in 1980: ``If we have to drill at the White House or Arlington Cemetery or the Capitol grounds for oil, we might have to drill in the Arctic Refuge. But let us go there last.''

We don't need this oil. We have plenty of supply. The Interior Secretary is trying to open a billion acres, including on-shore and outer continental shelf waters. Vote no and protect a unique special place that has been protected for 60 years.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to talk about amendment No. 1141, which would raise a point of order against any provision that would strike State and local tax deductions.

As we talk tonight about how our country moves forward economically and as we talk about what are the best ways to have tax fairness in America, I guarantee you, my constituents want to make sure they continue to be able to deduct their sales tax, their mortgage deductions, and there are important policies that other States have for tax deductions.

The State of Washington has been a leader--and I would match our State,

as it relates to our tax code and efficiency, with just about any other State. For a long time, Washington and Oregon have had the most unique tax codes in the United States of America. Yet our economies have grown faster than the national average every year since World War II. So we are doing something right. So the fact that we don't have an income tax in Washington State and the fact that Washingtonians, for many years, have been able to deduct our sales tax from our Federal tax obligations for income is something we are not interested in losing. What we are interested in is a fair debate about our Tax Code, an open process, and important discussion points of order if anybody tries to strip from us these very important tools.

State and local tax deductions have been an important way in which our taxpayers make sure they are treated fairly. For us in Washington, as I said, many of our citizens use these itemized deductions because of the fact that we don't have an income tax and we are able to deduct our sales tax from our Federal tax obligations. In fact, 30 percent of Washington resident taxpayers--1.1 million--itemize their taxes and claim an average State and local tax deduction of $7,402. These deductions put an average of $600 back into the pockets of Washingtonians each year. So any attempt by legislation to try to erode that--particularly at a time when we also get a deduction on our property taxes as well--is something critically important to our State.

If legislation continues to move forward that repeals these deductions--I know our colleagues think they are doing good work by trying to simplify the Tax Code. In fact, they are saying: We are going to increase the standard deduction as a way to simplify the Tax Code. But for my Washington residents--and, my guess is, for many other States that are in the same boat that don't have an income tax--you literally are going to penalize them and the efficiency of their tax code, which is so important.

For example, 40 percent of tax filers who make between $50,000 and $75,000 claim this deduction, and 53 percent of taxpayers who make between $75,000 and $100,000 claim this deduction. So when my colleagues talk about doubling the deduction from $6,000 to $12,000 or from $12,000 to $24,000 for families, I am sure they would like us to believe that somehow is going to make the residents of Washington State and our taxpayers whole. That is not the case. On average, Washingtonians in those brackets could actually end up paying more. Why? Well, first of all, we should realize that there are over 250,000 Washingtonians--that is the estimate--who make more, in a joint filing, than $150,000. So right there, these Washingtonians would be in a situation where, under this tax proposal, they would be paying more than they are currently paying because they are not allowed to itemize and they are not allowed to deduct. I don't want to raise taxes on Washingtonians. In tight economic times, I don't want to see them continue to see these deductions eliminated and have their tax bills go up.

Washingtonians work very hard at trying to make and keep the efficiency. I know there are other States--such as Texas, Alaska, and Florida--that also don't have an income tax. I know those States are probably struggling with the same policies and want to make sure they are making the same kinds of efficiencies. What we don't want is the current Republican proposal to raise taxes on working families in Washington State. We want to make sure these families continue to see the deductions they have had in the past.

So how would this work exactly in Washington? Well, one of the things we are concerned about is the impact on the housing market. Without the deduction for property--we do not want to see an increase in the price of housing and fewer people being able to afford home ownership because they are no longer able to take this deduction. That would be something of grave concern to Washington residents.

Also, we want to make sure that we continue to have these deductions for both singles and families of four, who would be impacted by this.

For example, an average individual taxpayer making between $50,000 and $100,000 has an average total deduction of about $22,000. So this taxpayer would not benefit from increasing the standard deduction to $12,000. The difference is that they now get $22,000 in their itemized deductions, and under this proposal, they would only be able to deduct $12,000 of that. Take a family who is making over $100,000. As I said, we have 250,000 filers in our State who make between $150,000 and $200,000. This income bracket on average claims a deduction of $30,000 from various State, local, mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and medical expenses. This family also would not benefit from increasing the standard deduction to $24,000. As I said, they are already deducting about $30,000.

Literally, we are raising taxes on thousands and I would say probably hundreds of thousands of Washington residents. That is why I am offering this amendment. I want us to have a point of order and true discussion about any policy that would raise taxes on my residents in Washington State. We have to have a tax discussion that is about a fair and open process, a continued dialogue about how to make sure that working families get a fair deal in a tax policy. But one policy that is jammed into a budget proposal and that then comes back to us for 51 votes, that literally eliminates our ability to itemize and deduct and gets rid of our sales deductions that we have fought so hard for, that we are so proud of as it relates to the individuality of how our State operates--we should not, with just 51 votes, cast a vote increasing the taxes on thousands and thousands of Washingtonians and, I would say, on many other States in our Nation.

I hope our colleagues will take a close look at this. I hope they will help us in trying to make a point. Let's not rush through a policy when we don't know what the impacts are. Let's get specific about what the impacts are and recognize that some of our States are the most ingenious as it relates to delivering great services at lower costs.

I know some of my colleagues would like to say: There are these big States in the East, and here is how they operate. Here is what they do in collecting various forms of revenue. Well, this Western State operates with a great deal of efficiency. Our residents have come to expect these sales tax deductions and these mortgage deductions, and they want to keep them. They do not want to hear that there is a sleight of hand at the eleventh hour, not by a broad debate but a tactic that would jam them into a reconciliation bill because of instructions and thereby have these thousands of dollars of tax increases foisted on them.

I hope my colleagues will join me in this very important point of order that we will be offering in this amendment. Let's have this discussion in broad daylight and not penalize innovative States that have different tax codes but have grown faster than the national average and continue to do so. Let's make sure that we have tax fairness for all residents of our country.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak against the budget resolution's containment of language that might direct our colleagues in the future to open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue and for being on the Senate floor tonight to talk about how important it is that we continue to maintain this Wildlife Refuge as it exists.

Our public lands have been under assault from this administration. It comes in all forms. It certainly comes in the form of trying to use the Antiquities Act in reverse and, basically, to say: You can open up public lands for drilling.

This really caused a controversy in Utah with the Bears Ears National Monument. There are Tribes, sportsmen, fishermen, and hunters who value the public lands in this national monument and who don't want to see it turned over to companies or individuals who want to mine or drill for oil and gas to the detriment of the monument resources. Now the budget resolution will allow for a ``for sale'' sign on

some of our public lands to give a tax break to millionaires.

It is not that this is the only issue. As I said, there is the notion that the administration is taking our public lands and trying to turn them over to be developed, the notion that they are giving land to coal companies so they can harvest coal off of Federal lands and then not charging them a royalty rate which is compensatory and fair to the American public. We tried to fix that. Obviously, this Secretary of the Interior is trying to roll that back and give coal companies a sweetheart deal.

Now we have an EPA Administrator who, basically, has had a mining company CEO walk into his office and say: By the way, we want to develop a mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay in Alaska, home of the largest salmon run and probably responsible for 50 percent of sockeye salmon around the world. Immediately after the mining executive left the EPA Administrator's office, the EPA Administrator sent out a letter saying: Let's toss aside Clean Water Act safeguards to protect Bristol Bay, move forward on this idea of allowing the mine application to proceed.

So much for due process, so much for preserving what has taken the American public more than a hundred years to put together so that the public can recreate on public lands--so, yes, hunting, fishing, Native American, and recreational communities are all upset.

What is the latest play? Let's stick in the budget resolution language providing for the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development--something that has been so precious to the United States of America--basically a Serengeti for wildlife, an intact arctic ecosystem that doesn't exist in other places in the United States. Yet people are trying what I call a sneak attack, just like they did 12 years ago, just as people tried to open up the Arctic refuge for development before and on its own merits couldn't get it enacted into law. They put it in the Defense appropriation bill, thinking that there is no way people could vote against money for the troops--that is how we can get the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge open for mineral development.

But it didn't work then, and it is not going to work now. The American people are not for legislative sneak attacks, backdoor ways to move legislation that could never pass on its own merits. I know the President wants to get a big budget package together, get healthcare in there, throw in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, hope that people can't vote no, and move forward. I would say, if this is such a wonderful idea, let it stand on its own merits.

This area, as we can see, is a very pristine part of the United States. And now some people are saying: Oh, well, we could do some sort of drilling. Why do you want to have drilling in a pristine wildlife refuge? When people say: Oh, well, there are refuges that have had drilling--if that was prior to it being declared a refuge, yes, but this is a pristine area that we decided to set aside. Why? Because, as I mentioned, it is a Serengeti, it is an arctic Serengeti of caribou and other wildlife, over 200 different species of birds that come to the area, to say nothing about the population of polar bears in the region. Why do we want to destroy this? It is not that we are somehow thinking that we are going to get oil reserves out of it for our Nation. In fact, the issue is really, with the price of oil and the oil export market that has now been created, oil produced here is going on to the larger world market. So why is it that we think this is going to help us in the United States?

People are trying to use a budget process to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion to pay for tax cuts for wealthy people. They are willing to degrade the environment as a way to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. I don't agree to it. I don't think the American people agree to it. They know that this iconic wildlife refuge has been attacked many times. They know that every time, someone has had to come up with some backdoor way of trying to get the refuge opened. I think my colleagues should understand and take note that these have all failed. They failed in the past because this idea is not the brightest, most brilliant idea in America. It is not the thing that is going to turn the U.S. economy around. It is not the thing that is going to help us get tax reform. It is not an idea that is even going to help us with the bipartisan effort to move forward on an energy package. If you think about it, we passed an energy bill out of here last Congress with 85 votes. If this was something that could be done in that package, it would have been done in that package.

I know that we are going to have more oil and gas exploration in Alaska. I know there is going to be more exploration in many parts of the Arctic. There is going to be a rush of Arctic nations to look at oil drilling off of our coast and in the Arctic Circle. The United States should get ready and participate in those discussions. I am first in line to say that we need a fleet of icebreakers to be prepared and be ready for the advent and the change in the Arctic. There will be many discussions about where responsible drilling should take place. I guarantee you, even if you opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it would not stop this debate about more drilling in Alaska.

Let's remember that we set aside this pristine area for a very specific purpose: to keep the uniqueness that has existed in this part of the world--just a very small piece of it. Continue to have the debate in other parts of Alaska and in the Arctic about what the development of oil resources are going to be.

I encourage my colleagues not to fall prey to another backdoor attempt at trying to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Don't fall for a cynical bill where somehow somebody is going to try to cram everything in it and say: You can't vote against it because it has too many things for your State. Let's do the work that it takes to do bipartisan work--work together, agree on the things that we can agree on, and move forward. I guarantee you, our energy policy will be better in America for doing that.

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 today to speak about the vote we will have at 5:30 p.m., but I want to give my condolences to those who have been impacted by the horrific shooting in Las Vegas and to the families and the victims of this horrible incident. I want them to know that our thoughts and prayers are with them as the whole Nation turns to this situation.

My thoughts and prayers also go out to at least one Washington family who was impacted and was at this event. We may find out that there are others. We are thinking and praying deeply for their recovery, and I hope everybody will take the time to say some thoughts and prayers for those who have been impacted by this incident.

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in opposition to the nomination of Ajit Pai to have a second term as the Chairman of the FCC. The reason why we are speaking about this vote that will happen in a short period of time is because we are concerned about the future of innovation, the future of where consumers play in the decision making of how they access content, and the future of our economy.

What I am worried about is that, in the short period of time that Chairman Pai has been at the FCC, instead of the policies that would have enabled consumers, he has taken actions that, I think, will have consumers paying more for less access and with which media concentration will be more enabled and plans to protect net neutrality in an open internet will be reversed.

This, in and of itself, is the biggest issue that I and the economy of Washington State could possibly see with this renomination; that is to say, the State of Washington and the internet and innovation that exists there could be greatly impacted by the rolling back of protections that we have now, which say that you cannot artificially throttle or slow down internet activity and hold consumers hostage to paying more.

The mission of the FCC is to promote the use and deployment of communications in the public interest, and it is the job of the Chairman to make sure that mission is carried out. Undoing the existing net neutrality laws on the books, I do not think, is in the public interest, and it will not promote the access we need. Dismantling this rule that would preserve the diversity of content will negatively impact our marketplace for a long time.

When we think about some of the issues that we have already seen and what we could see in the future, more consumers will have to pay a toll to use the internet. What we will see is that, if you want to get in the fast lane or if you want to have rapid access, you have to pay more.

Today consumers are using mobile apps to preorder coffee, to get access to healthcare information, and to make sure that we protect ourselves from attacks on everything, from our electricity grid to people's homes and security systems. I am very worried that, if the internet's arteries are officially slowed down or clogged, critical information could arrive too late to help protect consumers.

We are living in a world where people are seeing things happen then using their smart phones to collect and share information that can keep all of us safe. So this is another reason why we want to make sure that consumers can get access to and share information and are not slowed down or throttled in any way.

When we think about this and the app economy that exists in Washington State, these are the fastest growing businesses. It is part of a large organization, where, today, 1.7 million Americans' jobs are because of these apps, and nearly 92,000 of them are in the State of Washington. They have grown at an annual rate of 30 percent. The average growth rate for all other jobs is 1.6 percent. Why would we confirm someone who has already pledged to roll back the rules of an open internet, which basically will create throttling and slowing down of content that will hurt the app economy and small businesses?

Nobody wants to develop a new application that connects consumers-- whether it is in healthcare or protecting people in cyber or education or, for that matter, even the Senate--if they are going to have to pay a toll to get faster access to information or to get faster access to their customers.

Dismantling net neutrality puts our economy in jeopardy. While I know some would say that it is necessary for investment, I would say that instead what we have seen in the last several years, while the open internet rules have been in place, is the type of increased investment in the internet infrastructure that is needed to support its growing importance.

I do not agree with my colleagues who think this reversing the open internet rules is necessary to grow our investments. That's just what the large cable companies tell you they need so that they can build fast and slow lanes and charge consumers more if they want access to those fast lanes.

I encourage my colleagues to vote no on Ajit Pai for a second term as FCC Commissioner. Let's get focused on making sure we protect an open internet.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose the nomination of Ajit Pai to serve a second term as Chairman of the FCC.

Since taking over the FCC leadership in January, Chairman Pai wasted no time moving the agency away from its key mission to promote the use and deployment of communications in the public interest. For example, he has been involved in dismantling the rules that preserve the diversity of content in media ownership, potentially negatively impacting forever the number and variety of voices in the media market.

In addition, his confirmation to this important position will also have a negative impact on one of the most important issues, I believe, of our time; that is, preserving net neutrality. A strong and open internet is key to an economy of the future--to promoting an environment for innovation and facilitating the creative jobs that are going to come along with an open internet architecture.

Chairman Pai is poised to undo the bedrock principles that are already in place to protect an open internet. Even in the face of evidence that these rules are important to an internet economy and millions of jobs, he is determined to try to rewrite them.

On Monday, the Senate will vote on whether to confirm Ajit Pai for another term as Chairman of the FCC. As I have said, I think his leadership has shown that on net neutrality, he believes the rules should be changed. As long as he continues to hold that position, I cannot support his nomination.

As the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, he has demonstrated disdain for the important public interest principles he is supposed to be upholding. He shows a disregard for the innovators in America that are striving to build the economy of the future. The public interest mission of the FCC is encoded in the agency's DNA. The law that created the FCC clearly states that the agency's mission includes promoting equal access to communications networks for all people around the United States. This means the FCC has the responsibility to promote the expansion of communications networks and to ensure they have the incentive and ability to compete fairly with one another in providing broadband services. The mission does not include letting a big telecom company or cable company run over small businesses or consumers and saying to them: Unless you pay me more, I am not going to give you essential services. Imagine if that happened to the telephone industry decades ago, if you couldn't get access because someone had decided, ``I'm going to let the highest bidder rule the roost.''

The President's nomination of Pai and his desire to have him continue as Chair continues to show a desire to undermine the internet and the internet economy. As soon as he was appointed, Chairman Pai announced his intention, as Chairman, to go against the demands of American consumers and reverse the rules that are already on the books to protect consumers. Chairman Pai wants to make it possible for those big telecom and cable companies to erect toll lanes that would further burden the nature of the internet and innovation that its economy supports. He plans to go against more than 10 million American consumers and innovators who have told him to keep the internet open and free.

Recent studies have shown that the internet economy is now over 7 percent of U.S. GDP, it employs 7 million people and is worth a trillion dollars. Our strong, robust internet rules, without question, have helped keep that economic growth. Our economy is in a massive technological transformation. It is in an information age, and in an information age, making sure you have an open internet is going to be key to continuing to grow business.

Every business plan of every startup relies on the ability of consumers to get equal access to content. Largely, as a result of the innovations, the open internet has created hundreds of thousands of tech jobs in the United States. The internet economy is almost a trillion dollars, and at 7 percent of GDP, it is growing faster and stronger than many other sectors, including construction, mining, utilities, agriculture, education, and entertainment.

It is disturbing to me that Chairman Pai has made it clear he wants to rewrite the rules that protect those businesses and create an artificial fast and slow lane and ``if you want out of the slow lane, you better pay me more money.'' We can't afford to do that for all the internet applications and all the small businesses that are continuing to work on growing our economy. We need to make sure that instead of shedding jobs in the United States, as we did in the last economic downturn, that we are creating jobs and creating power for consumers.

We have seen what has been termed the ``app economy,'' which consists of everybody who makes money has a job thanks to a mobile app that was also powered by the internet. Today, 1.7 million Americans have jobs because of that economy. Nearly 92,000 of them are in the State of Washington. Over the past 5 years, that app economy and those jobs have grown at an annual rate of 30 percent. The average growth rate for all other jobs is 1.6 percent. So, literally, Chairman Pai is trying to clog the arteries of one of the fastest growing economic opportunities in America.

By 2020, the app economy is estimated to grow to over $100 billion. This demonstrates that the internet economy is a dynamic, supercharged, job-creating engine, with economic growth that should not be artificially slowed down because some industries believe they have the right to do so.

These facts, and making sure we protect an open internet, are why we should not support Chairman Pai.

The slow lanes and the fast lanes are not like a highway where a consumer or business can take another route or plan another course. Here, you are creating barriers that are wedges between businesses and their consumers, between doctors and their patients, between industry solution providers and the customers they are trying to serve.

The growth of the internet platform for economic activity is something we do not want to see destroyed, and Chairman Pai's dismantling of that robust internet architecture and the support it gives to innovators is extremely troubling to me.

I think about all the internet applications that I have seen in my State, whether it is a business like McKinstry that provides building efficiencies to school districts all over our State and in Puget Sound. Let's pretend now that McKinstry, which is trying to tell North Shore School District that they are using too much power could reduce their costs by just doing three simple things--but now, all of a sudden, because the net neutrality rules go away, McKinstry has to charge that school district more if they want to get that information to them on time. A clogged artery will not get the information to that school district when it is needed in time to make an adjustment.

Let's talk about a doctor in a rural area who receives information about a patient who comes into their emergency room but wants a consult with a doctor in Seattle, and all of a sudden, now their connectivity is slowed down unless they pay more money.

I also think about this issue in the context of just some very everyday ways we experience the impact of an open internet. Like people going to get coffee. In my State, they will now preorder. They go online, and then they show up to get their coffee--all so they can avoid the long lines. But now, all of a sudden, if net neutrality goes away, is that going to mean another charge or, an extra toll, just to get consumers connected to the coffee shop so they can avoid a long line? Are cable companies and internet service providers going to say to the consumer: You have to pay more if you want a fast lane.

What Chairman Pai doesn't realize is that the internet is now a full- blown ecosystem with many attachments; that the internet is like the artery system that connects it all and connects it in so many ways beyond even our imagination. Yet he is proposing to clog those arteries, to hold us ransom if only we will tell a cable company it is OK to charge the American consumer more.

We cannot afford to ruin the internet economy by doing this. We need to have an open internet architecture that allows everybody to access this information at the same time and the same rate so that we can continue to innovate.

There are ways to grow the internet and grow internet investment in the delivery system. In fact, during the time period of the open internet rules, we have seen just that--a continued investment. So we do not now have to rewrite these rules. We do not now have to throw a roadblock, a hurdle, a clogging of the arteries at the small business and internet economy that is growing so rapidly with all its devices.

God forbid that one of our colleagues would be on the other side of town and get a delayed message about when a vote started just because we in the Senate hadn't bought a higher, faster speed lane, and maybe they would miss a vote. It is hard to say what slowing down the internet artificially would do because it is so connected to everything we do today, and that is why we have to stop this from happening.

I would be happy to hear that Chairman Pai has decided to drop his insistence on trying to change the rules of an open internet. If he did that, I might think differently about his nomination. But until then I will continue to fight for my State's economy, which depends so greatly on net neutrality, and continue to fight for the millions of consumers around the United States who are trying to grow what are smarter, more intelligent, more cost-effective businesses.

Even the healthcare debate we just had is instructive on the issues of net neutrality--I believe in home healthcare. I believe we can implement it and drive down costs. But if you are telling a patient that they might not get the information back from their doctor for days because he can't afford a fast internet connection that the cable companies are charging, then I guarantee my colleagues we are not going to reduce our healthcare costs.

So, please, I say to my colleagues, you will not have another chance at this. You will hear from your constituents about this issue, and you will not be able to take back this vote. Please make sure you understand that Chairman Pai is marching ahead on a very different anti-consumer road, and because of that, I am not going to vote for someone who is going to slow down and clog the internet.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on Chairman Pai's nomination.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, my colleagues have been here on the floor over the last few minutes, last night, this morning, and this afternoon to talk about our distress about people trying again to push the repeal of the Affordable Care Act without a successful strategy to move our Nation forward with more affordability.

We just received a letter from 10 Governors basically telling us the same thing, to slow down and work on a bipartisan basis. They are basically telling us the proposal people are trying to rush through without regular order is not the kind of thing which will help us in making the necessary reforms.

I think these bipartisan Governors--from the Governor of Colorado to the Governor of Ohio, to the Governor of Alaska, the spectrum of Democrats, Republican, and Independents is something people in the United States of America should listen to because it is important we get this right because the affordability of healthcare is so important.

What I don't like about the proposal now being pushed by my colleagues--even though they want the States to have some flexibility and play a larger role--is that it basically ends the 52-year State- Federal partnership we know as Medicaid today; that is, it changes the dynamic in saying that the States and the Federal Government are in business together to take care of a population that is the most vulnerable of citizens in our country and that giving them affordable access to healthcare is a priority because it actually reduces everybody's healthcare costs.

When people think about the expense in healthcare, ask any provider, and they will tell you that 1 in 5 dollars spent on the Federal system drives the cost of everybody's insurance. If you leave people uninsured, they go to the hospital, they raise the cost to everybody. It is not a good strategy. We have seen States that have covered people on Medicaid actually raise people out of poverty, help their economies, and reduce the costs at individual hospitals, thereby driving down the cost of private insurance.

Why would we want to destroy that by authorizing in legislation the end of this 52-year relationship between the Federal Government and States, trying to make sure our populations are covered; that if a State spends a dollar, they can count on the Federal Government to spend that dollar as well and to continue the partnership that works cost-effectively.

What I also don't like is it sunsets Medicaid for 15 million people. If you are going to sunset Medicaid for these 15 million people, when are you going to sunset Medicaid for the rest of the Medicaid population? When are you going to try, by legislative action, to curtail the opportunities for millions of Americans who use Medicaid as a stabilizing force for health insurance in America? In our State, 600,000 people--most of whom were previously uninsured--would be in that sunset of Medicaid.

The legislation my colleagues are pushing would basically end the funding for this block grant program in 2027, which would leave States with an unfunded bill for those individuals of about $300 billion. I doubt States have the money. I doubt the individual market is going to take care of those individuals as cost-effectively as we are taking care of them through Medicaid. States will then cost shift these resources back to the public, raising everybody's rates again.

Our job has to be about affordability. It has to be about driving down costs. It has to be about driving down costs in the individual market and driving down costs of the delivery system overall. There is nothing innovative about kicking 15 million people off Medicaid and sunsetting it in this bill.

I also object to the notion, in this bill, of literally advocating the privatization of Medicaid. They are advocating that what you do with this population is take them off the current program and shift them onto the private individual market.

Some people who are following this might say: Well, wait. Then they can go to the private market--and, yes, there is support to make sure we have affordable health insurance. No, because the legislation also says you stop that support by 2027. So this is just one more sneak attack by our colleagues at kicking people off Medicaid. To start the process and agree to privatize Medicaid, where is it going to end?

I am the first to say we can improve our delivery system, that we can save money. I have advocated I think one of the most cost-effective ideas of the Affordable Care Act; that is, to move the population of our citizens who need care in the later years of their life off nursing home care and into community-based care. It is one-third the cost. Our State, the State of Washington, saved more than $2 billion doing this over a 15-year period of time. If other States would do this, we could save $100 billion or more by having States give people the opportunity to age at home and have a long-term care delivery system which works in our communities. It is one-third the cost.

That is innovation. Those are cost savings. That is improvement on our current delivery system, hopefully covering an aging baby boomer population that will reach retirement and a population of Americans who are going to live longer.

There is nothing innovative about just privatizing Social Security, privatizing Medicaid, and kicking people off by shifting them over to an exchange and then cutting the resources for the exchange. I hope our colleagues will stop the notion that somehow this is innovation. It is not innovation. It is sunsetting, it is privatization, and it is cutting people off care. That is why we have heard from these Governors and others about why it is so important not to take this bait.

We need to make sure we are continuing our bipartisan discussions, continuing to work together about what will drive affordability into the market. Bundling up a population and giving them clout to negotiate on rates and giving a State the ability to negotiate on rates--either on drug costs or on insurance--yes, this can save dollars. It is being done right now in New York and Minnesota, and it can be done in other places.

Cost-shifting to the States this $300 billion or then making States make

the draconian decision of, ``Wait. I already shifted that population onto the exchange. Oh, my gosh. The Federal Government just cut the funds we are going to get,'' and the next thing you know, this population is left without care.

Privatizing Medicaid is not the way to go. I hope our colleagues will continue to discuss, on a bipartisan basis, the aspects of the Affordable Care Act that could be expanded to drive down costs and increase affordability. I hope they will continue to make sure things like basic health--the essential elements of what should be covered in a basic plan--are there for our consumers; that we are not going to take the bait in thinking that by cutting essential services to people, somehow that is the way to get a private insurance plan.

We have the ability to work together. My colleagues and I have been working and discussing these ideas. My colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Alexander are working on various ideas in their HELP Committee, as we are working in the Finance Committee, in making sure we expand and fund the affordability of insurance for children and their families under the Children's Health Insurance or CHIP program.

Let's not make this worse. Let us not end this 52-year relationship that has successfully covered a population of America, and let's not fall for the bait and think that somehow this is going to save the American taxpayer money. It is not. It is going to cost shift right back to the private individual, raise individual rates, and we can't afford it. Let's not privatize Medicaid. Let's fight to make it a more cost-effective program for the future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.