Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I thank all of my colleagues, led by Senator Cantwell, for joining me on the floor this afternoon. We are speaking on behalf of millions of our constituents and of the tens of millions of Americans who support a free and open internet. I am proud to come to the floor to discuss an issue of national importance to both our economy and our democracy--net neutrality. Now, a lot of people have recently stopped and asked me: What exactly is net neutrality? The technical answer is that network neutrality, or net neutrality, is the principle that internet service providers--you know their names: Verizon, AT&T, Charter, Comcast--cannot discriminate against content providers, against websites. They are the people to whom you pay by check each month and who make sure that you have broadband service. You know who they are. The simpler explanation is this: No one owns the internet. Everyone can use the internet. Anyone can improve the internet. Yet that will not be the case if the Trump administration and Ajit Pai, the Chairman, and Republicans have their way. They want to get rid of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules so that the ISPs, the internet service providers, can indiscriminately charge more for internet fast lanes, slow down websites, block websites, make it harder--and, maybe, even impossible--for inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses--the lifeblood of the American economy--to connect to the internet. That is why we are here this afternoon on the floor, and it is why supporters of a free and open internet are vigorously opposed to this politically craven attempt to weaken the principle of net neutrality that has allowed the internet to flourish. Tomorrow the Federal Communications Commission is voting on a proposal that will cut at the very heart of a free and open internet. They are voting to roll back net neutrality protections and send a love letter to the big broadband companies that stand to make huge profits without these rules. So what are Chairman Pai and his broadband buddies really trying to do? The first thing they will do is to gut the rule against blocking. What does that mean? It means that an internet service provider could block any website it wants. That includes a website of a competing service or a website with a contrary political view--whatever they want. Second, Chairman Pai would gut the rule against throttling. What does that mean? It means that the internet service provider could slow down any website it wants. Third, Chairman Pai would gut the rule that bans paid prioritization. What does that mean? It means that the internet service provider could charge websites for an internet fast lane, meaning that those websites could load more quickly, while the websites that could not afford the internet's ``E-ZPass'' would be stuck on a gravel path and take more time to load, frustrating consumers with long buffering times. Fourth, Chairman Pai would gut the forward-looking general conduct rule. What does that mean? The general conduct rule protects consumers from harms such as data caps and other discriminatory behavior that ISPs will think of in the coming months or years ahead. Fifth, Chairman Pai would create an unregulated interconnection market. What does that mean? It means that the Federal Communications Commission would lose authority to oversee places at which ISPs connect to the internet and extract fees. Finally, Chairman Pai wants to prevent States and localities from adopting their own net neutrality protections. What will be the replacement for these enforceable net neutrality rules today? What will replace them? Absolutely nothing. Chairman Pai will leave it to the internet service providers to, simply, regulate themselves in this unpoliced internet ``Wild West.'' Chairman Pai claims that the Federal Trade Commission--not the Federal Communications Commission, which is the Commission of expertise over telecommunications--somehow provides a sufficient backstop to bad behavior by the ISPs, but that is simply not true. Under the Federal Trade Commission, the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies. That is like letting the bullies develop their own playground rules. If the ISP wants to block websites, slow down competitors' websites, and charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their customers, they will be free to do so. That is because the Federal Trade Commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its own net neutrality policies--that is, the policy created by the broadband company itself. Yet, if an internet service provider has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes, there is nothing the Federal Trade Commission can do about it. That is ridiculous, and it is wrong. Allowing the broadband industry to set its own net neutrality protections is like letting the fox guard the henhouse. OK, so the Federal Trade Commission oversight will not work. Chairman Pai claims that he has another solution. It is called transparency. He argues that, if ISPs are transparent about their net neutrality practices, consumers and businesses can simply choose to use a broadband provider with the net neutrality practices that best suit them. But what good is transparency when most Americans have little or no choice for high-speed broadband access? Consider this that 62 percent of Americans have only one choice for high-speed, fixed broadband. That is right. Nearly two-thirds of the country have only one choice from whom they can purchase broadband. That means, if a household's only choice for high-speed broadband is not transparent about its plans to set up internet fast and slow lanes, the consumer has two choices--one, to accept the internet service provider's terms or, two, to live without the internet. That is a false choice. People do not want to live without the internet in the 21st century. Chairman Pai claims that internet service providers actually support net neutrality but just not the open internet order under which we are living today. That is like saying that you support democracy but not the Constitution. It is like saying that you like math but you hate numbers. It makes no sense. The broadband barons have been fighting for years, both at the Federal Communications Commission and in the courts, to block net neutrality rules. It is crystal clear, and it has been for years. The broadband companies are deeply opposed to net neutrality because they want to drive up their profits by setting up internet fast and slow lanes and charge consumers more for less. It is a simple formula. Chairman Pai also claims that broadband investment has been discouraged by the open internet order. That is false. Investment in our broadband infrastructure is stronger than ever, and with the deployment of 5G technologies on the horizon, we can expect this strong investment to continue. Broadband investment in the aggregate has increased in the 2 years since the FCC passed the open internet order. Beyond just measuring dollars spent, broadband speeds also increased after the 2015 order, meaning the ISPs have been improving the services they offer to their consumers. Consider this: In 2016 almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That is $25 billion worth of investments. We have hit the sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless technologies is high, job creation is high, and venture capital investment in online startups is high. Chairman Pai threatens to disrupt this appropriate balance and squash innovation online. It is clear that Americans do not want what the FCC is proposing. It seems as though the only supporter of this plan is the broadband industry. If Chairman Pai and his Republican colleagues turn a deaf ear to millions of Americans standing up to net neutrality and approve their plan tomorrow, we will continue this fight elsewhere. When the Obama- era rules were challenged by the internet service providers in 2015, I led a congressional amicus brief with Congresswoman Eshoo in support of the rules. Congresswoman Eshoo and I plan to do it again this time and lead an amicus brief in defense of net neutrality. I also intend to file a Congressional Review Act, or CRA, resolution of disapproval with a number of my colleagues so that the U.S. Senate can vote to undo Chairman Pai's proposal and restore the 2015 open internet order. The Trump administration is waging an all-out assault on our core protections: DACA, the Affordable Care Act, the Paris climate accord, and the Clean Power Plan. Now Trump's Federal Communications Commission has put net neutrality in its sights. For all of those who rely upon the free and open internet, whether it is for commerce, education, healthcare or entertainment, I urge you to join me in this fight to create a firestorm of opposition to this assault on net neutrality. This is a fundamental attack on the openness of the internet that must be beaten, and we must now form an army of ordinary Americans as the voices that will fight the special interests and lobbyists in this city who want to shut down net neutrality forever. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, Margie Alt belongs on the Mount Rushmore of environmental advocates. For more than three decades, first at U.S. PRIG and then Environment America, Margie has been one of the leading generals in this monumental fight to combat climate change and protect our environment. It was Margie's vision that transformed U.S. PIRG and Environment America into the powerhouse environmental advocacy organization it is today, with more than 1 million members across the country. Because of her leadership, EA doesn't just stand for Environment America, it also stands for everywhere in America, because that is where she planted the seeds of grassroots change and political activation. As a tireless consumer protection champion, she has ensured that America's air and water is clean, our beaches and waterways are protected, and the public is safeguarded from toxic threats. She led groundbreaking work to organize the majority of State Renewable Electricity Standards in America, laying the foundation for the clean energy revolution that is now unstoppable. Her voice, passion, and strategic brilliance have been indispensable as the environmental movement she helped build takes on climate deniers and corporate polluters. For her entire career, Margie has stood up for the public's health, stood against the special interests who would despoil our lands, and stood for integrity and progress. She is truly Massachusetts' commitment to public service personified. America has been fortunate to have had Margie Alt's extraordinary leadership for these many years, and I have been fortunate to call her my friend.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for presiding today. I thank the Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, for organizing all of us this afternoon to speak on behalf of these Dreamers. His leadership has been critical in this fight for the dignity and recognition of hundreds of thousands of wonderful young people who know no other home than the United States of America. For 5 years, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--or DACA-- Program, has created security and opportunity for young immigrants around the country, but now the futures of some 800,000 young people-- 7,900 of them in Massachusetts--are needlessly in jeopardy because President Trump has coldheartedly repealed DACA. DACA has been a hugely successful program. It has provided so many young immigrants safety, security, dignity, respect, and opportunity. These are young people who study, who work, who live next-door to us every single day. They are our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones. I would like to speak for a few minutes about one of these DACA beneficiaries. She is 28-year-old Paola Sanchez, who came to the United States from Bolivia when she was 14 years old. Paola's father passed away when she was just 8 years old. Her mother was in a wheelchair and was unable to work. With her family facing hardship, Paola came to America to live with an aunt and uncle in New York. There, Paola worked in the manufacturing industry while she attended high school full time. She often got home late at night and grabbed a few hours of sleep before getting up to head to school to do it all over again. In 2007, Paola graduated from high school and moved to my State of Massachusetts, where she has lived ever since. She now works 30 hours a week as a case manager while attending Bay State Community College full time. She has been a model student, earning a 3.9 grade point average, and she hopes to enter nursing school in January. Paola has been a DACA recipient since 2013, but her current status expires next year. This means that unless Congress acts and saves the program, Paola and thousands like her will have to leave the United States for countries they do not really know and no longer consider to be home. Paola's case, like many others, is even more difficult because she has a 4-year-old son--a child who is an American citizen by birth and has never known any other home than the United States. All Paola wants is to stay here with her son, get her nursing degree, get a good job, and give back to the country so much more than she has been given. Instead, Paola and countless other young people and families across the United States face uncertain futures. Instead of going to sleep tonight knowing they will be able to live their lives in peace and plan for the future, they are left with uncertainty, vulnerable to deportation, and unable to work legally. This is a human tragedy in the making. It is heartbreaking, it is unjust, and it is just plain wrong. We should not punish these young people who have no other home than the United States of America. We should not go back on the word we gave when we told these young people to come out of the shadows. These Dreamers are engineers, police officers, teachers, future nurses, and students, many in our great Massachusetts colleges and universities. They serve bravely in our military. They are our best and brightest and are making the most of the opportunities that the United States has always provided to immigrant communities. The ball is in the court of the Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Speaker Paul Ryan and Leader Mitch McConnell can listen to a growing chorus of their own colleagues and to business CEOs, including those at Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, General Motors, and to academic leaders, countless college and university presidents, all of whom support DACA--or they can side with the forces of intolerance and injustice. Congress should pass the Dream Act so that people, like Paola, who were brought here at a young age and who have served in the military or pursued higher education can earn citizenship. I urge everyone to listen to Dick Durbin, to listen to this chorus of voices from around our country. Protect these 800,000 young people. Protect them because they deserve it, and America will be the beneficiary of these great Americans who are serving our country right now. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion of the Senator from Maine. He is sitting right at the heart of this issue, and that is that this is nothing more than a con game by the Republicans to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people and the wealthiest corporations in America and then, ultimately, to wind up with a huge addition to the Federal deficit. I thought I would take this time just to explain to the American public what this whole concept of a reconciliation process is. It sounds like a very fancy word, ``reconciliation.'' What does it mean, though, in the legislative context? You have to take it for what it is, and the key part of the words ``reconciliation plan,'' when we are dealing with the Republicans, is the word ``con'' because the whole thing is a con job that they are trying to pull on the American people. Step No. 1 is for them to argue that they are going to give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations and the wealthiest individuals in America. The vast, overwhelming percentage of it goes to them. Pennies on the dollar go to average working families as tax breaks. Then they begin to argue that there is going to be a huge increase in economic growth in the United States, although they made the same argument in 1981 with the Reagan tax breaks, and it turned out it exploded the deficits. Then they made the same argument with the Bush tax breaks, and it exploded the Federal deficit. The economic growth, which they said was going to happen, never happened. Now they are just bringing it all back again--deja vu all over again--hoping that everyone will just buy the same, exact, now-debunked economic argument for the third time in our history. So the key is, first, we provide the tax giveaways to the wealthiest--the wealthy corporations. That then results in exploding deficits. Then they say: Well, there may be some additions to it, but that is just a side impact. That is where they are extremely deceptive because, in fact, that is a feature of their tax breaks. A feature of their tax breaks is to create exploding deficits. How do we know that? Well, because the Republicans have already called for, in their budget, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. They have already called for a $450 billion cut in Medicare. They have already called for a $1 trillion cut in Medicaid. The beauty of the Republican plan, to give all of these huge tax breaks to the wealthiest in America, is that it creates such a huge deficit that their elephant symbol is shedding crocodile tears about how big the deficit is going to become. Of course, that will be next year, when they are shocked at how needed it is to cut Medicare and Medicaid. But they have already given us the preview of coming attractions by putting it in their budget this year. This reconciliation game, this con job, tries to separate the tax breaks for the wealthiest from their brutal, vicious cuts to programs for the poorest, the sickest, the elderly, the neediest in our country. That is the game. That is the con game, the reconciliation game that they are playing with the American public. By trying to divide this story line, they seek to have it sneak through without any full understanding of the ramifications for the American people or the implications for their families. Make no mistake about it, as they give the tax giveaways to the wealthiest, that will result in exploding deficits, which will result in the Republicans, once again, really caring about deficits. I will tell you an amazing thing about the Republican Party. They care passionately, deeply, about deficits when the Democrats are in charge. But when they are in charge, oh no, oh no. Do they care about deficits? Somehow they can turn a blind eye to their own actions, which lead to exploding deficits. There it is, ladies and gentlemen, the tribute that hypocrisy has to pay for virtue. They have to say the right things about investment. They have to say that this will not lead to exploding additional debt for our country. But every single economic analysis of this bill, going back to the 1981 tax breaks, shows it is all the same play--a Trojan horse to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. That is what David Stockman actually said in 1985, in his famous book, ``The Triumph of Politics.'' When he looked back at the 1981 huge tax break for corporations and the wealthy, he said that actually the whole thing was a Trojan horse to get tax breaks for the upper 1 percentile. He was honest about it. He also said another thing. He also said that ultimately the Republicans didn't have the nerve then to cut their own special projects or to stop advocating for massive increases in defense spending, which runs totally contrary to their ostensible goal of reducing the debt. So we are going to hear that. We are going to hear that. We are going to hear a request from Republicans for a massive increase in defense spending, along with their massive cuts in taxes, as though somehow or other they can get a balanced budget out of that. You don't have to be an accountant or an expert on budgetary matters to figure out that does not add up--unless, ladies and gentlemen, they are going to cut Medicare, unless they are going to cut Medicaid, unless they are coming back for it again. If you kick them in the heart, you are going to break your toe. That is what this is all about--giving away trillions of dollars to the wealthiest to create pressure on the programs for the poorest, for the sickest, for those most in need in nursing homes in our country. That is what it is all about, and, to boot, in order to get votes for their bill, they then say to their own Members: We are going to allow the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--this pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--for oil, even as just 2 years ago they had advocated for lifting the ban on the exportation of oil from our country that had been on the books for 40 years and even as we still import 3 million barrels of oil a day from OPEC. We are now exporting 1 million barrels of oil a day from our country. Where are they going to get it so they can send it out of the country to China? They are going to go to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, this pristine place. So here is where the oil companies are right now. They are going to get huge tax breaks out of this bill. And in order to get even more votes on their side, they are going to allow for drilling in a pristine Arctic wildlife refuge. In both cases, what is happening is that the next generation of Americans, regular Americans, is the one that is getting shortchanged. A despoliation of our environment, tax breaks that put inextricable, inevitable pressure on the social programs that go right to the heart of the safety net to protect ordinary family in our country--it is a con game, ladies and gentleman. It is a reconciliation con game that they are trying to play out here, and they do it time after time to kind of hide their real agenda. All I can say is that what the Senator from Maine is proposing is for there to be just a little bit of honesty in terms of what the real agenda is here, and what his motion calls for is for the Finance Committee to ensure that there is no increase in the deficit in the bill we are going to vote on on the floor. But that will never pass because the Republicans have a con game going. All of a sudden, they don't care about deficits anymore. They don't care about debt. They don't care about the pressure that is going to be put on ordinary families. Who will be paying back this debt? Well, disproportionately, it is going to be the regular families in the country. They will be paying back that debt for the rest of their lives, and the debt is caused by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. And to boot, it will then be the programs for those ordinary families that get slashed in order to pay for it because that is what is coming out here on the floor of the Senate in the very near future, this not-so-secret plan to actually fulfill their promise to the donor class of the Republican Party. They have a sacred duty that they have pledged to their donor class to get them these tax breaks and to do so at the expense of Medicare and Medicaid. That is the simple deal here. That is the con job they are trying to perpetrate upon the American people. That is why this vote is one of the most important votes in the history of the United States of America. There are no votes that are bigger than this. It goes right to the shape of capitalism. They are seeking to reshape capitalism as we know it--who gets the incentives to be productive in our society and who then has to pay for those incentives that are being created. So, ladies and gentlemen, this momentous, historic moment is something that I hope every American reflects upon as we head into next year because the next stage is their all-out assault on Medicare and Medicaid and probably Social Security as well, if they are ever going to fulfill their commitment to their Republican base. I thank the Senator from Maine for making this motion. I think it goes right to the heart of the debate that we need to have in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, last year, Chairman Pai, of the Federal Communications Commission, threatened to take a weed whacker to the FCC's net neutrality rules. On December 14, Chairman Pai and the FCC are likely to make good on that promise. Last week, they issued their plan. They are quite proud of it. Chairman Pai is very proud of their plan. They got that done last week. Then, on December 14, they are going to execute their plan to execute the net neutrality rules of our country. Net neutrality applies the principles of nondiscrimination to the internet world, ensuring that broadband providers--America's internet gatekeepers--do not block, slow down, or prioritize internet traffic. In 2015, the FCC correctly adopted the open internet order, enshrining these net neutrality principles into law, but now net neutrality and the free and open internet--this diverse, dynamic, democratic platform--are under attack. Here is what Chairman Pai is proposing. No. 1, he would gut the rule against blocking. What does that mean? It means an internet service provider could block any website it wants. It could block something just because it decided to. That includes a website of a competing service or a website with a contrary political view. Whatever they want, they can block. The biggest companies--Comcast, AT&T--they can just block it. No. 2, Chairman Pai would gut the rule against throttling. What does that mean? That means the internet service provider could slow down any website it wants. No. 3, Chairman Pai would gut the rule banning paid prioritization. What does that mean in easy-to-understand language? That means the internet service provider could charge websites for an internet fast lane--meaning those websites would load quicker, while websites that can't afford the internet ``EZ pass'' would be stuck on a gravel path, taking more time to load and frustrating consumers with long buffering times. No. 4, Chairman Pai would gut the forward-looking general conduct rule. What does that mean in easy-to-understand language? That means whatever discriminatory conduct ISPs think of next in the coming months or years would be perfectly legal. No. 5, Chairman Pai would create an unregulated interconnection market. What does that mean, an unregulated interconnected market? In plain English, it means the Federal Communications Commission would lose authority to oversee places where the internet service providers connect to the internet and extract fees. No. 6, Chairman Pai would prevent States and localities from adopting their own net neutrality protections. If you live in Massachusetts or you live in California or you live in Alabama, your State can't give you any protections. They can't say: Here's how we want the internet to be operating. What will replace these enforceable net neutrality rules? Nothing. Chairman Pai will leave it to the internet service providers--to the big companies we all subscribe to--to regulate themselves. We will just put them on the honor system. We know the broadband industry--your cable, your wireless or telecommunications provider--cannot regulate themselves. They struggle to even show up on time to install or fix your service. Do we really trust the broadband industry to resist leveraging their internet gatekeeper role and putting their online competitors at an unfair disadvantage? Of course not. What is Chairman Pai's silver lining in light of gutting all of these rules? He has proposed to keep some transparency rules, requiring the internet service providers--these broadband behemoths--to disclose their practices to consumers. What good is transparency when most Americans have little or no choice for high-speed broadband access? After all, 62 percent of Americans have one choice for high-speed fixed broadband. If a household's only choice for high-speed broadband is transparent about its plans to set up internet fast and slow lanes, the consumer has two choices: accept the internet provider's terms or live without the internet. That is not a real choice at all. People are not going to be living without the internet in the 21st century. You are going to pay whatever that company tells you, you are going to pay. It is clear that most Americans do not want what the FCC is proposing. A record number of people--over 22 million--made their voices heard at the FCC. Americans know the internet--the world's greatest platform for commerce and communications--is at stake. Consider that, today, essentially every company is an internet company. In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That is $25 billion of investment. To meet America's insatiable demand for broadband internet, U.S. broadband and telecommunications industry companies invested more than $87 billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is the highest rate of annual investment in the last 10 years. We have hit the sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless technologies is high. Job creation is high. Venture capital investment in online startups is high. With these net neutrality protections in place, there is no problem that needs fixing, but under Chairman Pai's plan, broadband providers get exactly what they want--an unregulated Wild West where they can set up internet fast and slow lanes. Chairman Pai proposes to have the FCC completely abdicate its rightful role to oversee telecommunications networks under title II of the Communications Act. Chairman Pai claims that the FTC--the Federal Trade Commission--provides a sufficient backstop to discriminatory behavior by the big broadband companies. That is simply not true. Under the Federal Trade Commission regime, the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies, and if the internet service provider wants to block websites, slow down the competitors' content, or charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their customers, they will be free to do so. That is because the Federal Trade Commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its own net neutrality policies, but what if the internet service provider has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes? There is nothing the Federal Trade Commission can do about it because the broadband baron told you what they are going to do. They were transparent about what they were going to do, but you just have no recourse whatsoever going to the Federal Trade Commission. It is a false promise of protection that Chairman Pai is presenting. The only way to protect a free and open internet is with strong net neutrality rules of the road, not voluntary guidelines. Chairman Pai's proposal would put the future of a free and open internet in the hands of big corporations and the powerful few at the expense of ordinary consumers all across our country. Our consumers will be tipped upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets because they will not have the protection of net neutrality provisions that are now the law but are soon to be wiped off of the law. The Trump administration is waging an all-out assault on our core protections: the Affordable Care Act, the Paris climate accord, the Clean Power Plan. Now Trump's Federal Communications Commission has net neutrality in their sights. For all of those who rely on the free and open internet--whether it is for commerce, education, healthcare, entertainment--I urge you all to rise up and create a firestorm of opposition to this assault on net neutrality. This goes to the fundamental principles of nondiscrimination online. This is the greatest engine for commercial job development our country has ever seen. It is the engine for new companies to be started. It is the way in which young people are able to disrupt established companies, to take new concepts that create jobs but also benefit consumers across our country. That is the opportunity this represents, and it is also a powerful force for democracy, for everyone's voice being heard equally. That is what net neutrality is about. That is what the Trump-Chairman Pai Federal Communications Commission is about to end, and that is why we must fight. That is why I am so proud to be standing as part of this effort with our great ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Bill Nelson from the State of Florida, because this is a fight worth having. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today we honor an icon of the film industry and a distinguished public servant, George Stevens, Jr. For five decades, George Stevens, Jr., served as the founding director of the American Film Institute, AFI, an organization that led the clarion call to preserve and celebrate America's film heritage. In honoring him, I would like to state the following in the Record: Whereas, George Stevens, Jr., stood in the Rose Garden of the White House in 1967 when President Lyndon Johnson announced there would be an American Film Institute in order to address the crisis of America's disappearing motion picture heritage. Whereas, through the extraordinary vision of the Library of Congress and the American Film Institute, more than 37,000 motion pictures are now safely preserved in the AFI Collection at the Library of Congress. Whereas, George Stevens, Jr., led the effort at the AFI to create a rescue list of movies with the Museum of Modern Art, Eastman House, and the Library of Congress and locate and preserve missing films. Whereas, the collection includes classic American films, including ``It's A Wonderful Life,'' ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' ``The Ten Commandment,'' ``Puss in Boots,'' and George Stevens, Sr.'s ``Gunga Din.'' Whereas, George Stevens, Jr., expanded the horizons of the next generation of filmmakers and visionaries with the creation an AFI Center for Advanced Film Studies. Whereas, George Stevens, Jr., unleashed the power of filmmaking in service to the American people, leading the United States Information Agency Motion Picture Service and producing award-winning films about the fabric of American life. Therefore, today in the U.S. Senate, I honor the 50th anniversary of the American Film Institute and the extraordinary legacy of George Stevens, Jr., director, producer, playwright, and public servant without equal. Thomas Edison may be given credit for inventing the film industry, but it is George Stevens, Jr., and the American Film Institute who have preserved it for future generations to come.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, this summer the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, turned 20 years old. I served on the House committee that created this bill and was proud to support providing the affordable comprehensive health insurance to low-income children and pregnant women. It is a bipartisan program, and it is an effective program. Last year alone, CHIP covered nearly 9 million children throughout the country. In Massachusetts, CHIP has been instrumental in achieving near-universal coverage for our children in the Bay State. Yet, instead of celebrating CHIP's successes over the last two decades, congressional Republicans have placed CHIP in programmatic purgatory. That is because they allowed CHIP to expire at the end of September. Instead of focusing on reauthorizing this critical healthcare lifeline, Republican leadership chose to waste months of time trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They let just one of these successful programs lapse while they tried unsuccessfully to end another. They were more interested in ripping healthcare coverage away from millions of Americans and taking a machete to Medicaid rather than protecting our Nation's children. We should not forget that CHIP stands on Medicaid's shoulders. Any fundamental changes to how Medicaid operates--whether it is block- granting or capping the program--will hamstring CHIP's ability to serve children as effectively and efficiently as it was intended to do, but instead of immediately returning attention to ensuring that this lapsed deadline is not effective, House Republicans have further delayed action by inserting partisan policies to pay for the program. This has not only caused an unnecessary delay in passing a bill to reauthorize CHIP, but it has dragged CHIP onto the political game board, turning it and our children into pawns in their ruthless game of partisan chess. CHIP has historically been and should be above such games because CHIP is not just an insurance program, it is a reassurance program. It reassures States that they can provide comprehensive healthcare coverage to some of their most vulnerable, it reassures doctors that their patients will be able to access care and treatment, it reassures teachers that their students can be healthy enough to learn, and it reassures Mom and Dad that their children can still get well in the face of financial hardship. Continued inaction on CHIP is dangerous and damaging. Every day we delay reauthorizing CHIP is another day parents across the United States live in fear that their children may soon lose their health insurance. They panic at the thought of leaving their child's asthma untreated, skipping a trip to the dentist, or delaying a doctor's visit because they can't afford to pay for the treatment or medication that may be prescribed. If we don't act soon, this fear may become a terrible reality for families. In Massachusetts, CHIP funding will expire early next year. This could impact coverage for 160,000 children in the Commonwealth, potentially delaying access to treatment and services that could have ramifications into adulthood. In Congress, we are celebrating the 20th birthday of a successful children's insurance program by effectively threatening to end it. That is what Congress is now doing to the State of Massachusetts. That is what they are saying to the State of Massachusetts; that they are going to effectively try to shut down a program that for 20 years has served the children in our State. That makes no sense. I urge my Republican colleagues to put their partisan games aside to provide certainty and stability to States, to providers, and to reassure families by reauthorizing CHIP. When President Trump says he wants to make the healthcare system in America better, when President Trump says he wants to make sure families are able to take care of their children, we have a program that does that already. It is successful, and families and the States love it. All we need is Republicans in the Senate to work together in order to make sure that program continues for the health of all children in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I would like to begin by quoting David Stockman. David Stockman was the head of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan administration. He wrote a famous book after his tenure running the Office of Management and Budget. It is called ``The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' Let me read you a quote from David Stockman's book. This is what he says: The hard part of the supply-side tax cut is dropping the top rate--the rest of it is a secondary matter. . . . Then, the general argument was that, in order to make this palatable as a political matter, you had to bring down all of the brackets. But, I mean, [the plan] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate. I quote from David Stockman in his book ``The Triumph of Politics.'' He wrote about how President Reagan sold massive, deficit-busting tax cuts for the wealthy by making knowingly erroneous arguments, by making faulty economic arguments. As we stand here on the Senate floor today, debating the Trump budget of 2017, we focus on what Mark Twain once said: History does not repeat itself, but it does tend to rhyme. This looks very much like what Reagan tried to pull off in the early 1980s, to no avail, and his book is very clear as to why they were unsuccessful. The Reagan-era promises of economic growth and budget surpluses turned out to be massive debt and deficits. There is some kind of nostalgia, political nostalgia, for a Reagan era that never existed and, instead, a painting of a past that just has to be replicated today. Let's look at what David Stockman said he did and why it turned out so unsuccessful for President Reagan. The Republicans are back again with a new budget, but they are using the same old bag of tricks and gimmicks from more than 30 years ago. This is their plan, which is very simple, and it is identical: No. 1, claim unspecified funding cuts to many domestic programs many, many years in the future; No. 2, assume unrealistic growth from your policies that will magically balance the deficit; and finally, No. 3, use those questionable economic assumptions to provide massive tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations in our country. The budget we are debating today hits all of these points. It claims to balance the deficit, while in reality it is a blatant attack on the middle class for the benefit of these super rich. First, let's start with the budgetary trick: unspecified cuts to domestic programs. Back in the 1980s, David Stockman called these ``magic asterisks,'' meaning that the Reagan administration would count the savings from these future cuts, but in reality, they would be someone else's problem to figure out at a later time. Today, we are dealing with a budget containing more than $1 trillion in completely unspecified and unallocated funding cuts over the next decade--the magic asterisks, programs to be cut but not specified. Please vote for this budget, but do not take any responsibility, my Republican colleagues, for actually telling the American people what programs are going to get cut--the magic asterisks. Second, we have the same unrealistic economic growth assumptions that Stockman referred to in the 1980s as a rosy scenario. That is what he called it. Today, we are being told that tax cuts for the wealthy will magically grow the economy to the tune of an additional $1.2 trillion and will somehow pay for themselves. History taught us that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. It was not true under Reagan, and David Stockman, his budgetary expert, tells us this. It was not true under Bush, and it will certainly not be true under Donald Trump as well. The Republicans forget recent history and continue to use these fairy tale economic assumptions for the same reasons they did in the 1980s. The tax cuts for the wealthy do not look completely irresponsible to the rest of the American people. Can we sell the American people once again on magic asterisks, on rosy scenarios, on unspecified cuts, on a budget that is balanced sometime in the future but is not the responsibility of these Members of the Republican conference at this time out on the floor of the Senate? Can we pull it off again? Can we fool the American people again? Can we hide our real agenda, which is to give a huge tax break to the wealthiest people in America? In the same way that David Stockman called that the Trojan horse to get the tax break for the wealthy, so too have they built another budget as a Trojan horse to get the tax breaks without any of those specific cuts in programs that they know will be like touching political kryptonite. They are not going to lay out which programs are going to get cut at some point in the future. That is why these tax cuts are irresponsible. The framework that Republican leadership has presented is devoid of details for what it will do to families. It doesn't specify what it will do for small businesses, and it is completely silent on how it will assist workers, who have been struggling for years to keep up with the rising costs of living. What the Republican tax framework is crystal clear on is how it will benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. In fact, the tax framework released by the Republican leadership will send 80 percent of the benefits directly to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest individuals in this country--Ronald Reagan redux, David Stockman redux. And 80 percent of the benefits go to the upper 1 percentile. What did David Stockman say? ``But, I mean, [the plan] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.'' What we have now is a Republican Party genetically hard-wired in order to do the same thing that failed as an economic policy in the early 1980s. It was such a catastrophe and it was so bad that Republicans actually had to get together with Democrats in order to fix it after it went into effect. This particular version of it will provide tax cuts for shareholders and CEOs. It allows the richest 1 percent of all Americans to concentrate wealth to an even greater degree than they already can, while many middle-class families will actually see their tax bill go up. They want to take away the State and local tax deduction. We are going to see millions of Americans with an actual tax increase. They are the middle class. There is almost nothing in this bill that helps the middle three quintiles. From 20 percent to 80 percent, there is almost nothing in this bill that helps them. They know it, by the way. They know what they are doing. They know that 80 percent of this is going to the upper 1 percentile. They know almost nothing goes to the middle three quintiles, and they also know they are going to take away the tax break for State and local deductions from those people as well. It is not a tax plan. It is a tax scam. Despite their talk about how these tax giveaways for the rich will pay for themselves, the Republican tax plan will create a $2.4 trillion hole in the deficit. We know what Republicans and the Trump administration will do with those deficits. They will be used to go where the 1980s plan did not ultimately go, and that is to gut Medicare, to gut Medicaid, and to gut Social Security. Let's give them credit. In this bill, at least on Medicare and Medicaid, they actually do talk about these specific cuts. They actually talk about it. There is a $470 billion cut in Medicare. You can hear that, grandma or grandpa. They are going to cut Medicare by $470 billion in this bill. I tell you one thing. Both grandma and grandpa may be old, but they are not stupid. They are not stupid. They know what you are doing. They are going to figure this out. They want to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion, as well, for those tax breaks for the upper 1-percenters. There is your plan. It is pretty simple to understand. Grandma and grandpa are going to understand it. The American people are going to understand it. It is all toward the Trojan horse to get the tax break for the upper 1 percentile. The recent report from the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee found that the budget would also slash $5 trillion from critical programs like education and transportation. It is unspecified at this particular point in time because they know it would create a political nightmare for them. It would be ``nitro hits glycerin'' politically if they specify at this time where those cuts would come from. Over the last 8 years, our friends on the other side of the aisle explained to us that the Federal deficits were the greatest threats facing our country. We couldn't invest in clean energy. We couldn't finance infrastructure. We couldn't do anything about healthcare or the people who need it in our country because of the threat to our national debt. Before that, we were famously told in the 2000s that deficits don't matter. Of course, that was after President Clinton's budgets in the 1990s put us on a path to a budget surplus. Before that, David Stockman was convincing President Reagan that deficits were of no concern and should not get in the way of tax cuts for the wealthy. We have seen this movie before, and now, once again, it sounds like the present rhymes with the past. We come back to the central erroneous premise of the Republican Party, which they continue to try to sell to the American people--that it is possible, simultaneously, to have massive tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent, to increase defense spending simultaneously and massively, and to balance the budget at the same time. It is not possible. The American people know it. They have seen it in the past. They are trying to run the same old movie past the American people, but it is all--in the immortal words of David Stockman--toward the goal of creating a Trojan horse to bring down the rates for the wealthiest people in America. That is the choice the American people are going to have to make. This budget is a moral disgrace to be considered on the floor of the Congress--Medicare and Medicaid, a sacrifice for a tax break for the wealthiest people in our country. This is a shameful day in the history of this institution. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the obscenity that will be the attempt by the Republicans to insert into the budget bill an ability for the big oil companies of our country to be able to drill for oil in this sacred, pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I first wish to thank Senator Cantwell from the State of Washington, our great Democratic leader on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for her leadership not just on this issue but on so many other issues in the energy and environment area that we are having to confront during this era of Donald Trump. Let me just tell my colleagues that the Republican budget is ultimately all about massive handouts to the 1-percent richest people in our country and to huge corporations, while doing almost nothing for working and middle-class Americans in our country. In this bill, the Republicans will slash Medicaid and Medicare while at the same time blowing a $1.5 trillion hole in the deficit to finance tax cuts for the superrich. But if that weren't bad enough, tucked inside of the Republican budget is a poison pill, one more massive corporate handout--a giveaway of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to Big Oil. Senate Republicans have included instructions for the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution that would open the door for drilling in one of America's greatest natural resources. This GOP budget sets the stage for Republicans to ram drilling in the crown jewel of America's National Wildlife Refuge System through the Senate's using only a 50- vote threshold. This is nothing more than a Big Oil polar payout. This cold-hearted Republican budgetary scam only underscores the backward priorities of President Trump and congressional Republicans. As our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico look desperately for relief from the devastation of Hurricane Maria, there has been no refuge in the Trump administration. When tens of millions of Americans wanted to be sure that their healthcare would be protected, there was no refuge in the Republican Party. But the instant billionaires and oil companies look for a tax cut, a refuge suddenly appears. That is when the Republicans can find a refuge. Unfortunately, it is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But the Republican plan to offset $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the superwealthy will only result in $1 billion being able to be raised from allowing the oil companies to drill in this pristine refuge. That plan neither makes any sense nor will it actually bring in any cents sufficient to pay for this huge tax break and the deficit they are creating. Maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think there is a different exchange rate above the Arctic Circle, but down here those numbers don't even come close to adding up. This is exactly the kind of polarizing politics we need to get away from--giveaways to Big Oil and billionaires at the expense of the American people and our planet. There is a long, bipartisan history of fighting to protect the Arctic Refuge for future generations. It was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who began this bipartisan legacy by setting aside the core of the Arctic Refuge in 1960. It was further protected by President Kennedy and Senator Tom Udall's father, Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall, during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Then, Representative Mo Udall succeeded in doubling the size of the Refuge, protecting even more of this untrammeled wilderness. Protecting this special place has always been an issue that rose above party lines, and it should continue to do so. In 2015 the Interior Department recommended that Congress designate this area as wilderness and not open it to drilling. In making that wilderness recommendation, the Department of the Interior concluded that the ``Arctic Refuge exemplifies the idea of wilderness--to leave some remnants of this nation's natural heritage intact, wild, and free of the human intent to control, alter, or manipulate the natural order.'' The Coastal Plain is the biological heart of the Refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service has called it the ``center for wildlife activity'' in the Refuge. It supports more than 250 species, including caribou, polar bears, and migratory birds, but that is exactly where this Republican legislation would allow Big Oil to drill, forever despoiling this ecosystem. Two years ago, we lifted the four-decades-old ban on exporting American crude oil. As a result of that giveaway to the big oil industry, we are now exporting more U.S. crude oil--nearly 1 million barrels a day--than we could ever produce from drilling in the Arctic Refuge. We have a fracking revolution taking place in our country right now. We hear it over and over from President Trump. We hear it from the Republicans: There is a fracking revolution. We are on our way to energy independence. We should lift the ban on exporting oil out of the United States. We should start selling it around the world to the highest bidder. We have so much oil that we can afford to send it out of our own country. Don't worry about it; there is no problem with exporting American oil. As a matter of fact, what the Trump administration also says is this: Don't worry about the fuel economy standards in America. We are going to start to review them so we can lower--lower--the goals for our country for making the vehicles that we drive in our country more efficient. Where do we put the oil in our country? We put 70 percent into gasoline tanks. We don't have to be a detective to figure out what happens if, instead of having our cars continue to get more and more efficient in terms of reducing the amount of oil that we need, we have our standards get lower and lower, and, as a result, we need to consume more oil. What does the Trump administration say? They say they are going to review the fuel economy standards. They are going to take a ``we can't do it'' stand. They are going to take an ``it's too hard to improve the economy standards'' stand. That is what they said for four decades: It is too hard. But during the Obama administration they were able to put on the books a standard that moves America to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025 in the United States of America--54.5 miles per gallon. That is where the plug-in hybrid revolution comes from. That is where the all-electric vehicle revolution comes from. That is where Elon Musk comes from. That is where all of these statements coming from the Chinese, the Indians, Volvo, and others come from. It is this movement toward plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles, reducing the amount of oil that we consume,--not just here in the United States, but around the globe. What does the Trump administration say? We can't do it. It is too hard. We are going to review those standards. So they are saying: We don't have the technological capability to accomplish something that avoids the necessity of having to drill in a pristine wildlife refuge--to put a gasoline station on top of something that should be preserved for generations to come. They are saying: We can't improve the fuel economy standards. We are going to export 1 million barrels of oil a day. Guess what. We are going to go up into the Arctic Refuge in order to find the oil so that the gas guzzlers can stay on the road and so we can export oil to China. We are going to allow, finally, for the Big Oil cartel--which is now taking over the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, and the EPA--the ability to be able to despoil one of the last untrammeled, perfect, pristine areas in our country. That is just fundamentally wrong, and we are going to have a vote on it on the floor of the Senate during this budget debate. To raise $1 billion total as they run up a deficit of $1.5 trillion, they despoil this sacred part of our country. It is immoral. It is wrong. It says that the Trump administration is handing over the keys of our government to the big oil companies. It is saying: No matter how many hurricanes hit our country, no matter how warm the water is off the coast of our country, they are going to remain in climate change denial--that it is really not a problem. Therefore, you don't have to increase the fuel economy standards. You don't have to reduce the fossil fuels going into the atmosphere. You don't have to worry. Climate change--ignore it. Fuel economy standards--we are not going to do it. What is the one thing we will do? For the oil industry, we are going to allow them to drill in the pristine Arctic wilderness. It is immoral--fundamentally immoral. For 60 years, going back to Eisenhower, we figured out how to protect it. But now, at the height of a fracking revolution, with millions of new barrels of oil; at the height of an incredible plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicle revolution, as we are reducing the amount of oil we are consuming in our country; at the height of storms that are assaulting every part of our Nation with an intensity we have never seen in our history, the President says: I am going to ignore all of those issues and just focus upon what Big Oil wants. This is going to be a monumental debate we will have on the floor of the Senate this week. I am looking forward to that debate because I think the American people are going to want to know who has voted which way on this critical environmental issue--the environment issue, in my opinion--which will be taken on the floor of the Senate this week and will be led by our great leader on energy and environment issues, Senator Maria Cantwell, from the State of Washington. She has been a clear, consistent, insistent voice on these issues. I think this week we are going to have the kind of historic debate the American people will want us to have on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, a tragedy took place in Las Vegas this week. It is a tragedy that has affected hundreds of families. It is a tragedy in which each and every one of us sends our prayers to those who have lost loved ones. And to those who have family members who are now hospitalized, we send our prayers to you as well, with the great hope that a full recovery is in their future. This was an unimaginable event that occurred in our country. It is now time for us to talk about this issue. There are many people who say this is not the time to talk about it, but the truth is, the only thing the National Rifle Association wants more than to sell lots of gun silencers is to put a silencer on the debate about gun safety legislation. The only thing the NRA wants more than allowing nationwide concealed carry laws is to conceal the overwhelming support for background checks. The only thing the NRA wants more than to stifle smart gun technology is to stifle debate on gun violence prevention. So to anyone who says having this debate now is too soon, it is already too late for at least 59 people in Las Vegas and hundreds of others who were wounded. We should not wait another day. We need to pass commonsense gun safety legislation so that we can hold a moment of silence for the National Rifle Association's stranglehold on American politics. That is what must end in our country. We need a debate on this floor on background checks. We need a debate in this Chamber on whether we are going to do research on the relationship between guns and violence in our society. We don't need to debate the issue of bringing silencers into our society that can be attached to guns and that would have made it infinitely more difficult for the police to find where the shooter was or for people to know that they needed to hide or move to a more secure location. That would not have happened. We would not have had 59 deaths; we could have had 259 deaths, 559 deaths, or 959 deaths because a silencer would have given less notice to all of those people that they should be moving and hiding and protecting themselves and their loved ones. On concealed carry, the Republicans are moving a bill that allows for someone to conceal a gun under a law in one State--because that State allows you to conceal a gun, you would be able to move into any other State and continue to conceal a gun even though that State's laws prohibit concealing guns. They want that law to move through. So when the Republicans talk about debating gun control, what they are talking about is lessening the safety around these guns, lowering the standards that would protect people, and allowing for silencers to now be proliferating on these assault weapons, these weapons of war that should not be on the streets of our country and that have the capacity to kill people without people hearing them. They say they are needed because we need to protect people's hearing when they are firing assault weapons. Well, it is more important that the police hear the bullets and that the people who might be hit hear the sound of those bullets as they are leaving the gun. That is going to provide far more protection. It is far more important that the police in a State or in a city know that someone has a concealed weapon. It is critically important for police protection. But the National Rifle Association does not want those kinds of protections to remain on the books. That is who they are. That is what they want. What should we be debating? We should be debating background checks. We should be debating whether someone should be able to buy a gun on Instagram and turn it into an ``insta-gun'' without background checks. That is what we should be talking about out here. Over 90 percent of Americans want stronger background checks. Yet the Republican leadership turns a deaf ear to the request of the American people because the National Rifle Association does not want there to be background checks on people who are buying guns in our country. More Americans have died from gun violence in the past 50 years on the streets of America than have died in all of our Nation's wars overseas in our entire history. Let me say that again. More people have died from guns in our own country in the last 50 years than all of our soldiers, sailors, Air Force, and marines have died going all the way back to 1776. That is how much of an epidemic this is in our country. It is an epidemic that now kills 33,000 people every single year in our country, but the Federal Government's investment in researching gun violence is zero. Diabetes--76,000 U.S. deaths annually; they get $170 million at the Centers for Disease Control. Flu--57,000 deaths a year; they get $187 million for research. Asthma--3,600 deaths a year; they get $29 million for research at the Centers for Disease Control. Gun violence--zero. An epidemic is ravaging our country, and the Republicans will not fund research to find this link between violence and the use of guns in our society, to do the research that can help us to reduce this carnage on the streets of our country. And because of an appropriations rider from the 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control hasn't conducted research into the causes of gun violence and how to prevent it. If 20 young children in Newtown had died of Ebola, we would have invested funding to study it. If 59 people in Las Vegas died of Zika, would we study it? Absolutely. But our country is suffering from an illness, and we have let it spread because we refuse to write a treatment plan. The American Medical Association supports ending the ban on research. The American Public Health Association supports ending the ban on research. More than 141 groups want to end this ban on researching the link between guns and violence in our society. The bill I have introduced with Representative Maloney gives $10 million to the Centers for Disease Control every single year. Shouldn't we be studying how to stop people from firing guns and give the medical, the scientific, and the public health community the resources they need? We also need to develop new smart gun technologies that would improve safety and reduce accidental shootings. My bill would authorize grants to develop and personalize handgun technology to increase efficiency and decrease costs. If you can use a fingerprint to operate your iPhone, you should be able to do the same thing with your gun to make sure that safety is ensured, to make sure it is your thumbprint on that gun, that if your gun is stolen or lost, no one else would be able to use that gun. Does that make sense? Well, your thumb can work for your smartphone. Your thumb could also work for smart gun technology. So this is where we are. We are at this critical point where some people are saying: Not now. It is inappropriate. We shouldn't be raising these issues. But what we should be debating is what the American people want us to debate. Over 90 percent want background checks on anyone who buys a gun in our country to make sure they are qualified, to make sure they do not have something in their background that should disqualify them from owning a gun in our country. Our debate here should really be about one thing: making the NRA stand for ``not relevant anymore'' in American politics. The task for the Republican Party is different. It will be whether they will kill these bills that would legalize more fully silencers being put on automatic weapons in our country, kill the concealed carry law, which is moving through the House and Senate driven by Republicans, and, instead, debate the kinds of things that make our country safer, the kinds of things that poll after poll is showing that the American people want us to do. That is going to be our challenge in the days and weeks and months ahead. This is the time; this is the place. We are the people who must be conducting this debate to make sure we add an extra measure of safety that American families can rely upon. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I wish to start my remarks with my deepest condolences and prayers for the people of Las Vegas and for the families and loved ones of the victims of the worst mass shooting in our Nation's history. The Nation's heart breaks that innocent concertgoers had to suffer such senseless violence. May you find the strength and love to overcome your grief, to heal, and to move forward. We owe our gratitude to the brave first responders for their efforts last night and to the medical professionals who are working tirelessly to heal wounds and save lives right now. But enough is enough. Americans are tired of living in fear that their community will be the next Newtown, Aurora, Orlando, or Las Vegas. We must act so that we do not become numb to this preventable carnage. This epidemic of gun violence in our country is not preordained. It is preventable. We can begin by banning these military-style assault weapons, like the AR-51, which are the guns of choice for those who seek to inflict mass casualties on civilians. These are weapons that belong in combat, not in our communities. Unfortunately, the gun lobby prevailed on Congress to let the assault weapons ban expire in 2004, but we need it now more than ever. We must also pass legislation to ensure that all gun purchases include a background check. Ninety-two percent of Americans support expanded background checks. No one should be able to purchase a gun through Facebook or Instagram without a background check. Instagram should not be ``Instagun,'' which it is in America today. Let's also close the gun-show loophole that allows anyone to go into one of these Kmarts full of killing machines and buy a gun without a background check. Let's close the loophole that allows domestic abusers to buy guns. Let's close the loophole that allows straw purchasers to buy guns and flood our streets with them. Let's repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or the PLCAA, and take away the gun manufacturers' immunity from civil liability. PLCAA should stand for ``protecting lives, creating arms accountability.'' We must also recognize that this epidemic of gun violence is a public health emergency, and we must treat it that way. We must fully fund this critical research agenda at the Centers for Disease Control and give the CDC the resources it needs. We will hear lots of people say that now is not the time to politicize this tragedy, that talking about legislation is insensitive and wrong. The only thing the NRA wants more than to sell lots of gun silencers is to put a silencer on the debate about gun safety legislation. The only thing the NRA wants more than allowing nationwide concealed carry laws is to conceal the overwhelming support for background checks. The only thing the NRA wants more than to stifle smart gun technology is to stifle debate on gun violence protection. So to anyone who says having this debate now is too soon, it is already too late for at least 58 people in Las Vegas and the hundreds of others who were wounded. We should not wait another day. We need to pass commonsense gun safety legislation so we can hold a moment of silence for the NRA's stranglehold on American politics. We must make ``NRA'' stand for ``not relevant anymore'' in American politics and in our country. That should be our agenda here on the floor of the Senate. What is wrong is leaving Americans in our communities unprotected yet again from gun violence. What is wrong is not having a debate and allowing the NRA to block sensible gun safety legislation. We must act so that we do not become numb to the preventable carnage for the people of Las Vegas and the people of Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, and every community in our country. That should be our responsibility now in this country. Mr. President, I wish to turn my attention to the confirmation of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the subject of today's vote on the Senate floor. Last week, I took to the floor to explain how, in his short tenure as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai has stood up for big corporations and ignored American consumers. Under Ajit Pai, the FCC now stands for ``forgetting consumers and competition.'' Here are the five reasons I gave. No. 1, on net neutrality, I explained how Ajit Pai wants to take a ``weed whacker''--his words--to net neutrality, allowing broadband providers to serve as internet gatekeepers and pick online winners and losers. No. 2, on privacy, Chairman Pai has actively supported efforts to allow broadband providers to sell consumers' sensitive information without their consent, as well as eliminating requirements for those companies to put in place data security protections, despite the obvious need to protect personal information. No. 3, on megamergers, Mr. Pai has paved the way for massive mergers, which will squeeze out independent programmers and lead to higher prices for consumers. No. 4, on the E-rate, the education rate, Chairman Pai has refused to commit to protecting the E-rate, the most successful educational technology program in our country's history, which links up schools and libraries to the internet. No. 5, on the Lifeline Program, Mr. Pai has undercut the Lifeline Program, which provides access to voice and internet service for millions of low-income Americans. The case against Chairman Pai's nomination is clear. I want to spend a few more minutes today on the particularly critical issue of net neutrality, the chief governing principle of the internet. Net neutrality ensures that all internet traffic is treated equally, requiring that internet service providers like AT&T, Charter, Verizon, and Comcast do not block, slow down, sensor, or prioritize internet traffic. Today, essentially every company is an internet company. Every company has to deal with the digital revolution to be relevant in the 21st century. In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That is $25 billion worth of investment--half of all venture capital in this country. That is good. To meet America's insatiable demand for broadband internet, the U.S. broadband and telecommunications industry--the big companies--invested more than $87 billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is the highest rate of annual investment in the last 10 years. That is good. We have hit the sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless technologies is very high. Job creation is very high. Venture capital investment in online startups is very high. With net neutrality rules in place, the best ideas, not merely the best funded ideas, can thrive in the 21st century. Chairman Pai says he ``likes'' net neutrality, but then he says he wants to take an ax to the very order that established today's net neutrality rules. That is like saying you value democracy but don't really like the Constitution. It makes no sense. Net neutrality is the organizing principle of the internet. Chairman Pai and the ISPs--that is, internet service providers, the big companies--keep walking around, whispering how title II is some terrible word, some terrible thing. Let's understand how we landed here. What is title II? It gets very mysterious until you put it into very simple language. In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission attempted to put net neutrality rules in place without reclassifying broadband under title II of the Communications Act. The District of Columbia Circuit Court proceeded to invalidate those rules and said to the Federal Communications Commission: Here is how you can do it, and it will not be struck down. Here is a smart way for you to put net neutrality on the books, which will make it legal. So the Federal Communications Commission, in correctly reading the court decision, went back, and in 2015 adopted the open internet order, which reclassified broadband as a telecommunications service under title II--under this ability to regulate. They did it, and the circuit court of appeals upheld the rules in a 2016 decision. There it is: instructed by the court how to do it, follow the instructions, implement, done. It is now baked into the personality of the internet to have openness. The apertures are there for anyone to be able to get on, not to be discriminated against. That is what the internet should be like in the 21st century. Title II is appropriate because it was Congress's intent to preserve the FCC's authority to forestall threats to competition and innovation in telecommunications services, even as those technologies used to offer those services evolve over time. We are not locked into one period of technology. As it evolves, so, too, does an evolution occur in terms of what openness means--the ability of everyone to be able to use the internet without being discriminated against. Broadband has become the single most important telecommunications service Americans use to transmit information to one another, and it has become clear that innovators, businesses, and consumers overwhelmingly view broadband as a telecommunications service. This is common sense to Americans around the country, with the only exception being big telecommunications lobbyists and lawyers who work to close this internet, who want to stop this incredible, entrepreneurial, democracy-enhancing set of rules that exists to ensure that this communications mechanism is not controlled by just a small number of companies. Ajit Pai has said that he likes net neutrality, but he thinks it should be voluntary. But voluntary regulations will not work. We know that the broadband industry--your cable, your wireless, your telecommunications provider--cannot regulate themselves. They struggle to even show up on time to install or fix your service. Do we really trust the broadband industry to resist leveraging their internet gatekeeper role and putting their online competitors at an unfair disadvantage? Of course not. Americans have made their voices heard about net neutrality. More than 22 million Americans have written to the Federal Communications Commission in the past several months, sending a clear message of support for net neutrality. Hear that again: 22 million Americans sent a message to the Federal Communications Commission that they do not want to see a change in the net neutrality rules for our country. Yet Ajit Pai will not listen. His plan will allow broadband providers to stifle innovation, stifle entrepreneurship. His plan will allow big broadband barons to crush competition, reduce choice, and then make consumers pay more. We cannot allow this to happen. That is why this vote we are about to take is so important. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up for consumers and to vote no on Ajit Pai's nomination to be the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today we begin debate on a position in our government that impacts the daily lives of every single American. If you use a telephone, connect to the internet, watch television, and pay a big cable company to do all of those things, then you need to know who Ajit Pai is. President Trump nominated Ajit Pai to be the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. While Ajit Pai has devoted many years to public service, I cannot support his nomination. Under Mr. Pai's short tenure, he has made the FCC stand for ``forgetting consumers and competition.'' Let's take a look at who is getting a piece of the FCC pie under Chairman Pai. It is American consumers on the one hand versus big corporations on the other hand. Let's take a piece of this pie and determine who is getting that first slice of what is going on at the Federal Communications Commission. Let's look at net neutrality. Net neutrality is the basic principle that says that all internet traffic is treated equal. Net neutrality ensures that internet service providers like AT&T, Charter, Verizon, and Comcast do not block, slow down, censor, or prioritize internet traffic. If Ajit Pai gets his way, a handful of big broadband companies will serve as gatekeepers to the internet. Fewer voices, less choice, no competition, but more profits for the big broadband companies--that is Pai's formula. Yet it is today's net neutrality rules that ensure that those with the best ideas, not merely the best funded ideas, can thrive in the 21st-century economy. It is net neutrality that has been the internet's chief governing principle since its inception. Consider that today essentially every company is an internet company. In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That is $25 billion of investment. Half of all venture capital in America went toward internet-specific and software companies--half of all venture capital. To meet America's insatiable demand for broadband internet, the U.S. broadband and telecommunications industry invested more than $87 billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is the highest rate of annual investment in the last 10 years. So we have hit a sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless technologies is very high. Job creation is very high. Venture capital investment in online startups is very high. That is why more than 22 million Americans wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to make their voices heard about net neutrality. They do not want it repealed. Yet Chairman Pai's proposal would decimate the FCC's open internet order. Chairman Pai has said: ``We need to fire up the weed whacker'' to net neutrality rules. Do we really want a leader at the Federal Communications Commission who, ultimately, is going to implement the agenda of the big broadband companies, which want to crush competition, reduce choice, and then make consumers pay more? So the first slice of this pie of killing net neutrality goes to the big corporations, and the losers are the consumers. Let's go to the next slice of the FCC pie. Let's see where that goes as these decisions are being made. The next issue is, in fact, broadband privacy. Chairman Pai has actively supported efforts to allow broadband providers to use, share, and sell your sensitive information without consumer consent. In 2016, Chairman Pai voted against commonsense broadband privacy protections that gave consumers meaningful control over their sensitive information. When he assumed the FCC chairmanship, Ajit Pai stopped the implementation of data security protections, which would have ensured that broadband providers better protect the information they collect about their users. Can you imagine that? Chairman Pai stopped protections that would improve data security. I have 143 million reasons as to why that was a bad idea. Just this month, Equifax was subjected to a cyber attack that compromised the personally identifiable information of 143 million consumers. The American public wants more protection, not less. Yet what does Chairman Pai do? He effectively eliminates the very data security protections that consumers need to protect their sensitive information. That is just plain wrong. Just a few weeks later, Mr. Pai supported congressional Republicans' efforts to rescind the Federal Communications Commission's broadband privacy protections. Now your broadband provider can relentlessly collect and sell your sensitive web browsing history without your consent. You may wonder why Chairman Pai would actively support efforts to undermine the privacy of American consumers. The answer is simple. He wants that slice of the pie to go to the biggest corporations. How do they use it? They take that data--your personal data, the information you put online--and just sell it without your permission in order to make money for the big corporations. Once again, rather than consumers, the big corporations get the benefit of that decision at the Federal Communications Commission. Let's take a look at the next issue. The next issue goes to the question of mergers, the mergers of big telecommunications companies. The Sinclair deal has led to a proposal to merge with Tribune Media, granting one company an unprecedented market power of over 200 broadcast stations around the country. In order to help Sinclair, Ajit Pai reinstated what most consider to be an antiquated rule, the UHF discount, to pave the way for the merger. The UHF discount makes the FCC count only half of the stations on certain frequencies toward companies' ownership percentages. This merger would allow Sinclair to reach into 72 percent of American households, but with the discount, the FCC counts it as only 45 percent. Putting this discount back on the books is Chairman Pai's first step to helping Sinclair stay within the national ownership cap of 39 percent. What will be the impact of this massive telecommunications mega- merger? Less local news, sports, and weather that millions of Americans count on today. It will lead to the continued squeezing out of independent programmers, and it will mean higher prices for consumers. What signal does approving this merger reveal? It reveals that the FCC and Ajit Pai have put out the welcome mat for the consolidation of other communications companies. So this third slice, once again, goes to corporations and not to consumers. They are left out in the cold. Let's look at the fourth slice and see what happens with that at the Federal Communications Commission under the approval of Ajit Pai's nomination on the floor of the Senate. The next slice is one that deals with the education rate, or the E-rate. The E-rate has proven to be exceptional in linking up schools and libraries to the internet. We went from a country in 1996 in which only 14 percent of K-12 classrooms had internet access to a near ubiquitous deployment today. The E-rate has ensured that students from working- class neighborhoods can connect just like students from more affluent communities. The E-rate democratizes access to the opportunities and technologies that lead to bright futures. Over $44 billion to date has been committed nationwide. Again, Ajit Pai does not take that perspective. At his confirmation hearing in July, I explicitly asked him whether he would commit to preserving the success of this bipartisan program and protecting the funding level or whether he would make programmatic changes that could undermine or weaken the E-rate. He would not make this commitment to maintain current funding for E-rate. Students and library users around the country will not be able to afford this slice of the pie. Once again, consumers will lose and corporations will win. Now we go to the final slice of that communications pie at the FCC. Telecommunication is the great equalizer, but a household with no access to basic telecommunications services could lose educational and employment opportunities as well as emergency services. That is why the FCC's Lifeline Program is truly a lifeline for millions of Americans who are able to connect to the world. In Massachusetts alone, more than 180,000 low-income Bay Staters rely on the Lifeline Program to access voice and internet service. The value of this universal service has always been a bedrock of our telecommunications policy. Yet one of Ajit Pai's first actions as FCC Chairman was to undermine Lifeline and make it more difficult for low- income people to access affordable broadband. I was dismayed by his decision to abruptly revoke the recognition of nine additional companies as Lifeline broadband providers just weeks after they were approved. Mr. Pai's action did nothing but unfairly punish low-income consumers by limiting choice. So the final slice, again, goes to the Federal Communications Commission's supporting corporations and not supporting consumers. That is the pie--the FCC pie--as it is put together on net neutrality, on privacy, on mergers, on E-rate, and on Lifeline. It is all the same. The FCC winds up standing for forgetting consumers and competition. That is the era that we are now in, and it will only intensify as each day, week, and month goes by. That is why I am recommending a ``no'' vote on Ajit Pai as the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Which side are we going to be on--that of the consumers or corporations? Are we going to side with innovators? Are we going to side with those who are trying to continue to take these platforms of dynamic change in our society for consumers, for entrepreneurs or are we going to allow for a closing of this revolution? This is the era in which we live in the 21st century. This is the choice that people must make. In which direction are we going? I urge a ``no'' vote by my colleagues on Ajit Pai's nomination. Of all of the things that we are going to do this year, this is very near the top of the list. In many ways, this telecommunications revolution is the organizing principle of our lives here in the United States and around the planet, and we have to make sure that we are heading in the right direction--more openness, more competition, more consumer protection, more privacy protection, and more access in libraries and schools to these technologies, not fewer and fewer and fewer and fewer. It is just the wrong direction to head in. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Massachusetts Walking Tour. Founded in 2010 in Webster, MA, the Walking Tour recognizes and celebrates local arts and culture throughout Massachusetts by featuring a nonprofit concert tour across the Commonwealth. Every concert is unique as it pairs the traveling musicians with local artists and outdoor recreation enthusiasts and is free for the whole community. These memorable events include diverse artistic and musical performances and even discussions about public land use with outdoor educators and trail managers. Since its founding, the Walking Tour has visited 90 towns in Massachusetts, playing 101 free community concerts. I thank founders Mark Mandeville and Raianne Richards, as well as all of the performers, artists, educators, and nature enthusiasts who have made Walking Tour such a success across Massachusetts.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to start my remarks today by offering my prayers and my support to the people of Puerto Rico and to their family members and friends here in the United States, many of whom have still not been able to get information about their loved ones. Massachusetts is home to the fifth largest Puerto Rican community in the mainland United States. It is a vibrant community, an engaged community, and since Hurricanes Irma and Maria, it has been a mobilized community. They are horrified by the images that are emerging from the island, pictures and videos of destroyed homes and of the massive flooding and widespread devastation. These images are difficult for any of us to see, and for those who have family there, these scenes beg for immediate action. Thousands of families are homeless, infrastructure is almost beyond repair, and much of the population will be without power for an indefinite period of time going into the future. We need to act now. We must treat Puerto Rico just like any other U.S. State that is experiencing a natural disaster. That means that the United States should continue deploying its military and civilian assets to provide lifesaving search-and-rescue, food, shelter, and power to residents of the island. Congress must also act to immediately provide additional aid and funding so that the island can begin the long process of rebuilding. Puerto Ricans, like Texans, like Louisianans, and like Floridians, are U.S. citizens. They are our sisters and brothers, and it is our moral obligation to provide them with help and relief in this time of their greatest need. As we debate healthcare, let's remember that in the wake of these devastating storms, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands will have enormous public health needs. They will be subject to an increased risk of disease transmission from a lack of clean drinking water, to physical injury from the storm, and to mental and behavioral trauma from the remarkable losses they are suffering. For those who are suffering from chronic conditions, such as diabetes and cancer and heart disease, finding and accessing treatment will be a daily struggle. Puerto Rico is a medical tragedy that is happening right before our eyes. History will judge us by how quickly we respond to this catastrophe. Healthcare Mr. President, we should remember that this debate over healthcare is not confined to just this week, and it is certainly not confined to this building or even to this mainland. Yesterday, I held an emergency roundtable with the leading healthcare leaders in Massachusetts. These are the healthcare heroes who provide compassion and treatment each day to their patients. They all spoke poignantly about the devastation that would come from repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. Dr. Peter Slavin, president of Massachusetts General Hospital, said: ``To repeal the [Affordable Care Act] would be a horrible sin for this country.'' Yet that is exactly what the Graham-Cassidy bill is. It is a cruel and inhumane sin that would damn millions of American families. In some cases, this most recent TrumpCare proposal is even worse than the failed bills before it. The bill proposed the use of a totally subjective formula which was changed at the whim of the bill's sponsors to entice more Republicans to vote in favor of it. The bill was nothing more than something that had political plastic surgery that had been performed, but it was fundamentally the same bill. At the roundtable I held in Boston yesterday, Dr. Henry Dorkin, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said: ``I fear that if Graham-Cassidy were to pass, we would go back to attending more funerals of children.'' There is simply no reason to go back to a time when people died of preventable or treatable conditions simply because they did not have access to insurance. Just moments ago, we learned that the Republican leadership will not hold a vote on this disastrous bill. They simply did not have the votes. Right now, millions of Americans are again breathing a sigh of relief. I applaud my colleagues Senator John McCain of Arizona, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, and others in this Chamber who are calling for a bipartisan process to strengthen and improve our healthcare system. We have done it before on the opioid crisis. We have done it on Alzheimer's and other medical research funding. I still believe we can do it here. We need to do what we have done so many times before and focus on bipartisan solutions instead of partisan exercises. I hope we can put Graham-Cassidy and other TrumpCare proposals behind us and embrace bipartisan negotiations led by Senators Alexander and Murray to stabilize the individual health insurance market. Just last week, Senators Wyden and Hatch introduced bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program for 5 more years. There are a number of bipartisan healthcare issues that need immediate attention this week, such as the funding for community health centers and extending the number of Medicare policies. This bill was not our only option. It is not even really an option, at least not for those Americans with preexisting conditions, who are on Medicaid, or who need opioid treatment. We need to work together in this Chamber to improve health in a way that works for all Americans regardless of where they live or who their Governor is. That is the responsibility of those who serve here, and now let us have a new beginning, where we begin to work together to solve those problems. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, in July, millions of Americans awoke from a months-long nightmare, as the Senate did the right thing and voted down multiple Republican proposals to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The American people breathed a sigh of relief when the future of their healthcare and of their children's healthcare was safe for the time being. Unfortunately, Republicans want us to go back to that nightmarish time by reigniting their proposal to threaten healthcare coverage for millions of Americans. While the bill the Republicans are supporting today may have a new name, it contains the same mean, devastating policies. It is a zombie bill that despite best efforts and against the will of the American people, will not die. Like its TrumpCare predecessors, the Graham-Cassidy bill will result in less coverage and increased costs. It eliminates the built-in protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, causing many of them to see their premiums skyrocket just because of a diagnosis. Some experts estimated that an individual with diabetes could face a premium surcharge of $5,600 under Graham-Cassidy. Graham-Cassidy will also allow States to decide what insurers have to cover and what they don't; meaning, once again, your ability to have comprehensive healthcare coverage would depend upon where you live. This is not the type of healthcare reform people in this country want or need, and it is certainly not the type of reform to help us overcome our Nation's opioid use disorder epidemic. With 91 Americans dying every day from an opioid overdose, we are clearly in the midst of our Nation's preeminent public health crisis. Over these last few months, we have heard time and time again that access to substance use disorder care is the linchpin to stemming the continually rising tide of opioid overdoses. Unfortunately, it appears our Republican colleagues have not been listening. To be fair, access to treatment today is still a challenge. Only 1 in 10 people with substance use disorders receive treatment. Right now, an estimated 2 million people with an opioid addiction are not receiving any treatment for their disorder. Yet the solution is not to block-grant funds which would otherwise be used to help people get care for their substance use disorders. The answer is also not kicking people off their insurance, but that is what my Republican colleagues are yet again proposing to do. As with the previous versions of TrumpCare, Graham-Cassidy would threaten insurance coverage for 2.8 million Americans with a substance use disorder. It would end Medicaid expansion and cap the program, slashing its funding and decapitating access to lifesaving care. This bill would simply take a machete to Medicaid--the leading payer of behavioral healthcare services, including substance abuse treatment. Also, in the same vein as earlier proposals, Graham-Cassidy would allow States to waive the essential health benefits the Patients' Bill of Rights put in place under the Affordable Care Act that ensures that every plan provides comprehensive coverage. Because covering mental health and substance use disorder treatment is expensive, this would likely be one of the first benefits to be cut. As a result, someone struggling with opioid use disorder would have to pay thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs, likely forcing many to forgo lifesaving substance use disorder care. This epidemic of opioid abuse and overdose deaths will only get worse as long as we have a system that makes it easier to abuse drugs than to get help for substance use disorders. Graham-Cassidy would only exacerbate this already dire problem in our country. Just last week, a leading sponsor of the bill said: ``We recognize there are circumstances where states that expanded Medicaid will have to really ratchet down their coverage.'' ``Rachet down,'' that is not improving healthcare. That is ripping insurance coverage away from the one in three Americans struggling with opioid use disorder who relies on Medicaid. That is gutting billions of dollars in addiction care and treatment. Graham-Cassidy isn't a new block grant program, it is a chopping block program--for Medicaid, for coverage, for access to critical substance use disorder services. I believe past is prologue here. Just as Americans rejected the inhumane and immoral TrumpCare of months past, they are already seeing this new attempt is more of the same and, in some cases, worse. Many patient, provider, and other healthcare groups have already come out against Graham-Cassidy, citing the bill's inability to maintain the healthcare coverage and consumer protections currently provided in the Affordable Care Act. It is deja vu. Enough is enough. Republicans newest shortsighted stunt is detracting attention from bipartisan efforts to stabilize the individual insurance market and to help decrease costs. Let's end this partisan gambit to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and start focusing on ways to make the healthcare system in our country better, not worse. We need all of you, in every corner of the country, to once again stand up and fight against these mean attempts to harm the health of our family members, our friends, and our neighbors. We need your energy, your commitment, and your passion to do what you did a few months back to help make sure our better angels once again will prevail. You have done it before, and I know you can do it again. My Democratic colleagues and I will be fighting right here with you to finally put this zombie healthcare bill to rest. This is the time. This Chamber will be the place where we have this debate within the next week on whether there is going to be a destruction of the Affordable Care Act, a destruction of the promise of access to healthcare for every American. The Republicans are coming back, once again, to try to destroy that promise. The Republicans harbor an ancient animosity toward the goal of ensuring that there is, in fact, universal coverage for every single American; that it is a right and not a privilege. What they want to do is to leave these programs as debt-soaked relics of the promises that have been made to ensure that there is, in fact, coverage for every American. So this is going to be the debate. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the great Senator from New York, used to say that when you do not want to help a program or to hurt a program, you engage in benign neglect--benign neglect. What the Republicans are doing is engaging in a program of designed neglect--of ensuring, after this designed program is put in place, that there is a reduction in coverage, that there are fewer people who get the help they need, that older people have to pay more, that fewer people get access, and that Planned Parenthood is defunded. It is all part of a program of designed neglect of the healthcare of all Americans. This is a historic battle. It was not completed in July. Now, in the next 10 days, we must complete this fight and make sure they are not successful. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, before I start my remarks on the dangers of nuclear war, I want to take a moment to congratulate the Watertown High School field hockey program in Massachusetts. Up until this past week, the Watertown Raiders had not lost a single field hockey game since November 12, 2008. For nearly 9 years, the Raiders have been truly perfect. Their 184-game winning streak was our Nation's longest in high school field hockey history. Their leader, Head Coach Eileen Donahue, is one of the most historic figures in Massachusetts high school athletics. To all the former and current players, coaches, parents and supporters, I offer my congratulations on this incredible accomplishment. Go, Watertown Raiders. Congratulations on a historic streak of victories.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Illinois, and I thank him for his great leadership on this issue. He has been doing this for a long time. His partnership with Senator Lindsey Graham is inspiring. I want to begin by thanking Senator Durbin and Senator Graham for leading this effort and making it bipartisan and making it possible for us to talk about an issue as Americans and not as Democrats and Republicans and having a discussion about who falls into the category of being an American who is entitled to the benefits of being in this country. For the last 5 years, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--or DACA--Program has created security and opportunity for young immigrants across this country. Now, the futures of some 800,000 young people-- 7,900 of them in Massachusetts--have been needlessly put in jeopardy because President Donald Trump feels the need to keep an ill-considered campaign promise made to his base and to break another one made to the best and brightest of our young people by repealing DACA. And because the House of Representatives has refused to debate and hold a vote on comprehensive immigration reform legislation, our immigration system remains tragically broken. Yesterday, I met one of these Dreamers, Diana Ortiz. Her mother brought her to the United States nearly 20 years ago. Diana studied history at Pomona College in California, and she recently received a master's degree of divinity from the Harvard Divinity School. She hopes to become a U.S. citizen. Diana literally wants to do God's work here on Earth. DACA has provided Diana and more than a million other young immigrants safety, security, dignity, respect, and opportunity. These are young people who play, study, work, and live next door to us each and every day. What will the repeal of DACA mean for the Dreamers and for our country? It will mean bad news for our economy. Many of these Dreamers have started their own businesses and are beginning their careers. Over the course of the past 5 years of the program, 91 percent of the Dreamers have found gainful employment. Removing DACA recipients from the workforce would reduce our gross domestic product by more than $460 billion over a decade and would cut contributions to Medicare and Social Security by more than $24 billion over that same 10-year period. It will mean misplaced criminal justice priorities, with law enforcement focusing not on targeting drug dealers, human traffickers, and the real criminals in our society, but on the Dreamers instead. These young people are not the so-called ``bad hombres'' that President Trump said would be the focus of his administration. Most tragically, it will mean unnecessary pain and suffering for countless young people and families across Massachusetts and across the United States whose futures will be uncertain. Instead of going to sleep tonight knowing they will be able to live their lives in peace and plan for the future, they are again left with uncertainty, vulnerable to deportation and unable to work legally. This is heartbreaking. It is unjust, and it is just plain evil. We should not punish these young people who have no other home than the United States of America. We should not go back on the word we gave when we told these young people to come out of the shadows. These Dreamers are engineers. They are police officers, teachers, and students, many in our great Massachusetts universities. They serve bravely in our military right now--in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. They are our best and our brightest, and they are making the most of the opportunities that the United States has always provided immigrant communities. I stand here this evening as a testament to the future that any family can achieve in this country. When I announced for the Senate 4 years ago, I decided--really, for the first time in my life--to go up and ring the doorbell of the house that my father grew up in. You pretty much grow up where your mother tells your father he is going to live. So my mother was from Malden, and my father was from Lawrence, and we grew up in Malden. My father always said: Well, Lawrence is just this great city. So I went up to ring the doorbell at 88 Phillips Street in Lawrence, in the shadow of the old south mill. It is a triple decker; that is, a three- family home, stacked one on top of the other. My father grew up on the first floor of 88 Phillips, with five brothers and sisters and a mother and father in this very tiny space. I rang the doorbell to see who lived there now, and the door opened. It was a Dominican family with their children. The accents were different, but the aspirations are just the same for that family as it existed for the Markeys. Now, my father graduated from Lawrence High School, from the vocational program, and his son is a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts. That was a dream that my father had or his father and mother had to be here in America and to give opportunities, not so much for themselves but for the next generation. Well, that is what we are talking about. We are talking about these young people whose parents brought them here to give them a better chance, but the children didn't have a choice in whether or not they would come here. They saw the promise that hard work, education, and opportunity--helped a little bit by the government--worked for the people. So that is really what we are talking about, and that is why I believe it is a new level of inhumanity for President Trump to betray the foundational values of this Nation by repealing DACA. He is no better than Pontius Pilate by having Attorney General Jeff Sessions make the announcement yesterday. President Trump is providing absolutely no leadership for his party or the American people on an issue that even he says is an important one, and I can only hope that he recognizes and understands the cruelty that repealing DACA will inflict on innocent young families, innocent young people all across this country. So if President Trump wants to take away these protections, then, Congress must act. The ball is in the court of the Republican leadership in the House and in the Senate. Speaker Paul Ryan and Leader Mitch McConnell can either listen to a growing chorus of their own colleagues and to the business leaders and CEOs--including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, General Motors--and to academic leaders and countless college and university presidents who all support DACA, or they can side with the forces of intolerance and injustice. Congress should pass the Dream Act so that individuals who were brought here at a young age can earn citizenship by serving in the military or pursing higher education. Ultimately, the House of Representatives must also debate and vote on comprehensive immigration reform. I have long supported a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants who are living here in the shadows. We are the United States of America. We are a nation of immigrants. We are called on not simply to tolerate but to celebrate our immigrant communities, to understand not only the need but the value of our immigrant communities, to embrace not just the differences but the diversity of our immigrant communities. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: ``Remember, remember always that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.'' No one knows that better than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We have always believed that no matter who you are or where you come from, you can achieve the American dream. We recognize that our economy and our security are stronger because of the immigrant families who have enriched our Nation since its founding. That is why this decision from the Trump administration cannot stand. We will not let it. With Congress now back in session, Republicans should prepare to have a historic debate--a debate about the fairness that we should extend to all of these young people. There are going to be voices, calls, marches, and protests all demanding protections for these innocent Dreamers. I pledge my support to the 800,000 Dreamers all across our country, and I will not stop fighting for them. We will not stop fighting for them. Millions of people are going to stand up. I believe that the American dream for all of these young people is achievable, and it must be here in the Senate that the realization of that dream begins. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Leahy, Shaheen, Van Hollen, and Warren.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.