Gary Peters

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, the Constitution charges Congress with the authority and the responsibility to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy. It is a responsibility this body takes very seriously. That is why for over 50 years the National Defense Authorization Act has been signed into law each and every year. It is the only piece of legislation with this long history of consistently being passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. This history is a reflection of the importance of the policies and funding authorizations within the bill. I am particularly proud of what this bill includes to support Michigan's important contributions to our national defense. For example, the 127th Wing at Selfridge Air National Guard Base flies the A-10 and in 2015 deployed in the fight against ISIS. As a result of their outstanding performance, the 127th Wing won the Spaatz Trophy as the top flying unit in the Air National Guard, as well as the Meritorious Unit Award following their deployment. The A-10 is without question a great airplane, but it is also getting old. The A-10 fleet will require wing replacements in order to continue to fly those important missions. That is why I worked to include an authorization for an additional $65 million for A-10 wing replacement, bringing the bill's total investment in new A-10 wings to over $144 million. These funds will help pay for new wings for a full squadron's worth of A-10 aircraft, which are vital for close air support and combat search and rescue missions. Our troops on the ground know that when they hear the iconic roar of an A-10, help is on the way. A-10 pilots and maintainers are proud of their mission, as they should be. This bill works to ensure that these aircraft will keep flying. The legislation also includes an additional $70 million for the next- generation combat vehicle prototype. The Detroit Arsenal in Warren will be the home of the Army's cross-functional team for the next-generation combat vehicle, reporting to the Army Futures Command. This important work on developing the future of the Army's ground vehicles will continue to occur in Southeast Michigan, taking advantage of many of the automotive manufacturers and suppliers that are shaping the future of mobility. Just as the commercial automotive industry is developing connected and autonomous vehicles that will change the future of transportation forever, the next-generation combat vehicle and other concepts developed by the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineer Center, TARDEC, will change the future of warfare. All self-driving vehicles, whether they are developed for the military or for the auto industry, rely on artificial intelligence and machine learning. Artificial intelligence powers autonomous systems but can also reform the business practices of the Pentagon. AI can help with personnel management and purchasing practices and find insights and efficiencies that are difficult to find unless you can manipulate and analyze the Department's massive amounts of data. Artificial intelligence will have an enormous impact on our economy, and that is why it is essential that the United States make significant investments in AI development and that we lead the world in developing this capability. We know that our competitors are taking AI very seriously. China has developed a national strategy to develop its AI capabilities, and Vladimir Putin has said that whoever leads in AI will rule the world. The United States must lead the way on artificial intelligence to best shape the future economy and our country, to strengthen our national security, and to address the moral and ethical questions that arise with any new technology. Without question, the United States needs our own coordinated strategy on AI. That is why I wrote a provision in the bill that designates a senior official for artificial intelligence at the Department of Defense and cuts redtape, letting that person utilize all of the flexibilities Congress has provided to the Pentagon. It is also important that we take steps to protect American ingenuity and innovation generally. That is why I also authored a provision in the bill that will allow the Department of Defense to require that companies and researchers receiving defense contracts not share new technologies and capabilities developed with any foreign entity, and if they do, they will lose the rights to that intellectual property. This will help ensure that investments made by DARPA and the DOD labs are not shared with our competitors. Additionally, this bill also includes reform to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS. CFIUS works to ensure that investments in U.S. companies made by foreign investors do not threaten national security by providing other countries with access to the crown jewels of U.S. technology. In closing, Madam President, I wish to point out that this bill is named for Chairman John McCain. We all know his presence is missed on the Armed Services Committee, as well as throughout the entire Senate. I wish him a speedy recovery. I am keeping him and his family in my prayers. Madam President, I yield the floor. amendment no. 2276

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, the history of the United Auto Workers is at the heart of what has made the United States a global economic powerhouse. It is tied to the growth of the thriving manufacturing sector and the birth of the American middle class. Dennis Williams, UAW president since 2014, is a strong contributor to this history. His leadership reflects a deep commitment to American workers and a clear eye toward the future. Since the union's formation in 1935, UAW members have stood together to ensure that their hard work is met with fair wages, safe workplaces, and reasonable hours. For over 80 years, the voice of the UAW has amplified the voice of the American worker. Dennis Williams is a champion of keeping this voice strong in the 21st century. Williams joined UAW Local 806 as a salvage welder in 1977, following his service in the U.S. Marine Corps. There, he started his long path of elected union leadership and served as chairman of the Bargaining Committee. In the coming years, Williams would rise to the positions of international representative, Region 4 assistant director, and Region 4 director. In 2010, UAW members elected him as secretary-treasurer, followed by the presidency in 2014. No matter what position Williams undertook during his decades of UAW leadership, he always stayed true to his roots. After becoming UAW president, he prioritized visiting union plants and locals to engage with members directly. He stated: ``I love the smell of black coffee and the smoke of the factory and walking up to UAW members and saying, `brother' or `sister'.'' His passion for everything the UAW stands for, along with his businesslike approach to tough decisions, enabled Williams to take on some difficult challenges during his presidency. Just as Williams started in his role, Michigan--home to around one- third of UAW members--had recently become a so-called right-to-work State. Michigan is now one of 28 States with policies designed to undermine union participation and workers' rights to collective bargaining. Despite tides of State and Federal anti-worker efforts, Williams remained practical and optimistic about overcoming any challenges that came the UAW's way. He emphasized the importance of sitting down and talking through issues rather than resorting to confrontation. Williams was steadfast about not giving up on organizing, and he has actively pursued new approaches to organizing that would keep the UAW strong in the future. His strategy has definitely paid off. During Williams' tenure, he successfully fought for the establishment of local unions at Volkswagen and Mercedes locations in the United States and for casino workers in Las Vegas. Under Williams' leadership, UAW membership has increased by almost 7 percent--over 27,000 new members-- between 2014 and 2017. The growth rate and membership over this past year has been the highest in a 1-year period since 2010. I am deeply honored by Dennis Williams' representation of over 430,000 UAW members, including tens of thousands of workers in my State of Michigan. I wish him well in his retirement, along with his wife, Donna, of 43 years, his sons, Ryan and Matthew, and his grandchildren, Kendahl and Kai. I know I speak on behalf of many Michigan workers when I sincerely thank Dennis Williams for his admirable service as the UAW's 11th president. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Donnelly for bringing this issue to the floor. I also thank him for his leadership on this issue. He has fought for Indiana families day in and day out on the Senate floor. They are facing a crisis now as the people of Michigan are facing a crisis. As the Senator spoke about a fair deal, I can say, with a great deal of certainty, that the people of Michigan, just like the people of Indiana, believe a deal is a deal. This is a saying we have all heard, but it is also something on which we should all agree throughout the country. The American commitment to honoring contracts is part of why our economy is the greatest in the world. Businesses know that if their partners in duly executed deals back out, they have access to the full power of our courts and our legal system to make them whole. This is basic fairness. A deal is a deal. Workers deserve the same fairness. Workers who have banded together to negotiate for pensions during their retirements in exchange for lower upfront pay deserve the pensions they have earned. Generations of Americans have built their lives around the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will have a fair shot at success. The certainty that hard work will be rewarded empowers Americans to achieve economic security, provide for loved ones, and retire with dignity, but for many Americans who have spent decades working hard, their retirements are now at risk. Tens of thousands of Michiganders will be denied their hard-earned retirements if Congress does not act to protect the pension benefits they have earned. More than 400,000 Americans, including over 47,000 in Michigan, will face massive cuts to their pensions if the Central States Pension Fund is allowed to fail. Central States is not the only multiemployer pension plan that is on a rapid path to insolvency. As many as 200 financially troubled plans are at risk of being closed while the retirements of 1.5 million Americans hang in the balance. When Michiganders contact me about this issue, they are frustrated and angry, but more than anything else, they are afraid. They are afraid they will lose their homes. They are afraid they will be unable to afford the healthcare they need. They are afraid they could, one day, become burdens on their adult children. I appreciate that it is not very easy to share very personal fears, but I would like to share some of the stories I have heard from Michigan retirees and from folks who are hoping to retire soon. Carl from Menominee would have to sell his house and find a new job he and his aching joints would, hopefully, be able to handle at the age of 72, after 30 years of hard physical labor. Jan and his wife Thelma, from Deerfield, would lose the home Jan built over 50 years ago with his own two hands. Although Thelma still works and pays into a pension plan, she will not receive the benefits she has earned over the last decade--ever since the troubled plan froze the funds for active workers. For people like Thelma, the uncertainty of pension cuts is quickly becoming a harsh reality. William from Erie is enduring an 80-percent cut to his pension. He describes it as the worst thing that could have possibly ever happened to him and his wife in their golden years. William is a Navy veteran who drove 120 miles to and from work every day to keep his pension and the promise of a comfortable retirement. The extreme cuts he is facing have forced him to go back to work. He had to overcome multiple barriers to senior employment in order to land a minimum-wage job. The job pays for basic necessities, like electricity, food, and heat, but he still cannot afford health insurance for his wife, who is still more than a year away from qualifying for Medicare. These Americans made deals with their employers--decades of hard work in exchange for fair earnings and decent retirements. A deal is a deal. We have the FDIC to make sure Americans don't lose their life savings if banks go under. We have federally backed crop insurance to help protect farmers who face unpredictable growing seasons. We even have federally backed mortgage insurance to protect banks if homeowners can't pay their mortgages. Workers like Carl, Thelma, and William are not asking for handouts. They are asking for the pension benefits they earned, that they bargained for, and that they worked their entire lives to secure. A deal is a deal. We must make this right. I urge my colleagues to stand up for American workers and support the Butch Lewis Act. We must address pension insolvency without sacrificing workers' hard-earned benefits. I thank Senator Donnelly for bringing this issue to the floor. I am with him, and we need to bring our colleagues with us as well.

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a lifelong champion of the American labor movement, Mr. Charles Hall, director of the United Auto Workers Region 1, on the occasion of his retirement from the UAW. As a member of the U.S. Senate, it is both my privilege and honor to recognize Mr. Hall for his lifetime of service and contributions that have strengthened our community and State. Chuck Hall has been a tireless advocate for his UAW brothers and sisters throughout his career. He joined the UAW as a member of Local 3 when he began working at Chrysler's Winfield Foundry in Detroit, MI, in 1972. There, he worked in the inspections and heat-treat departments. In 1977, Chuck accepted a job in timekeeping at Huber Foundry in amalgamated UAW Local 889. He continued to work both there and at Chrysler's Dodge main plant until it closed in 1980. He then returned to work at the Winfield Foundry, where he worked until 1983 and was also recalled to the timekeeping position. In 1987, Chuck accepted a position at Chrysler corporate payroll and in 1991 was elected as chief steward of his unit. Seven years later, he was voted unit financial secretary and appointed civil rights chairperson for his local. Shortly thereafter in 2001, Chuck was elected as financial secretary for Local 889. He was voted to serve as a delegate to the UAW constitutional convention in 2002 and served on the credentials committee. In February 2005, Chuck was appointed to the UAW international staff and assigned to Region 1. In the beginning of 2010, he was named the Region 1 assistant director on the recommendation of then--Region 1 director Joseph Peters. Chuck was elected director of UAW Region 1 at the UAW's 35th constitutional convention on June 16, 2010, in Detroit, MI. During his term, Chuck has served Region 1 and all of organized labor with honor, integrity, and selflessness. Chuck has spent his career and life in support of his community, organized labor, and civil rights. He currently serves on the boards of the Economic Alliance of Michigan, United Way for Southeastern Michigan, Community Caring, Delta Dental of Michigan, Care House, and is a member of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists and a lifelong member of the NAACP. Chuck has spent his career in service to others, his UAW brothers and sisters, his community, and his always growing family. I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Mr. Charles Hall for his many contributions to Michigan, the organized labor movement, and his leadership at the United Auto Workers Union. I wish Chuck and his family health and happiness in the years ahead.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, competition is the lifeblood of the American economy. Competition is what makes capitalism work. It is competition that has established the United States as the world's dominant economic force for over a century. American competition is driven by innovation. We created the light bulb, the automobile, and the internet. We all know that the internet has revolutionized the way we communicate, learn, and do business. A free and open internet allows students in Houghton, Lancing, and Mount Pleasant to access research and to collaborate internationally. A free and open internet allows startups in Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Flint to reach customers across the globe. A free and open internet allows a small bed and breakfast in Traverse City or Muskegon to reach millions of potential guests that they couldn't otherwise reach. While the internet has been a potent force for innovation and economic growth in recent decades, our economy has been facing some serious headwinds. I am deeply concerned that we are seeing increased business consolidation--big firms are getting bigger--and we are seeing fewer new small businesses and startups. A recent study found that across 900 different industries, over two-thirds have become more concentrated in the past decade. The formation of new companies is falling. The number of jobs created by new businesses has fallen, even as our workforce has grown. We have seen a large national internet service provider acquire a similarly large media company. We have recently seen the largest online retailer acquire one of our Nation's most successful grocery chains. Now we are seeing two of the four largest wireless carriers making preparations to merge. Certainly, consolidations and mergers are a part of our economy, but we need rules of the road to level the playing field, to help small businesses and startups to compete, and to drive innovation. This is exactly why we need net neutrality. Net neutrality protections prevented internet service providers from blocking, slowing, or prioritizing web traffic for their own financial gain. Without net neutrality, we could be subject to a two-tiered internet. Without net neutrality, large corporations, which keep getting larger and larger, can pay for a fast lane and buy the power to slow down or to block content. Without net neutrality, consumers, small businesses, and startups can be forced into the slow lane. Simply put, net neutrality keeps America competitive. Unfortunately, net neutrality is under attack by the Trump administration. In December, the FCC voted to repeal crucial net neutrality protections, despite the fact that 86 percent of Americans wanted the rules to stay in place. The decision to scrap these net neutrality protections is anti-consumer, anti-innovation, and anti- competitive. It disadvantages small businesses, startups, and families all across our country. While the FCC vote to repeal net neutrality rules is over, we are still here in the Senate fighting. In fact, we are closer than ever to reinstating the rules of the road that will keep the internet free, open, and competitive. Fifty Senators, including the entire Democratic caucus, have signed a petition that would force a vote on legislation that would reinstate these crucial protections. With 51 votes, we could overturn the FCC's original repeal and move one step closer to restoring fairness. Students, artists, advocates, entrepreneurs, and other visionaries who could be inventing the future and creating the next big thing could once again be on an equal playing field with multinational corporations when it comes to using the internet. We need net neutrality to keep our economy dynamic, growing, and innovative. We need net neutrality to keep our startups and small businesses competitive. Five months ago, I stood here in this Chamber urging the FCC to abandon their dangerous vote. Now I stand here urging my colleagues to reverse this dangerous and disastrous decision. We have the power to do it, and we must. We need one more vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I rise to oppose the nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to be the Secretary of State. I voted against confirming Mike Pompeo to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency because he lacked the experience and the qualifications for the position. His time at the CIA has done nothing to ensure me that he now has the capabilities to lead the State Department. As a Member of the House of Representatives, Mike Pompeo made repeated discriminatory remarks about Muslim Americans. He has argued that the Muslim American leaders have a ``special obligation'' to denounce terrorist attacks, and he has falsely claimed that they have failed to do that. I am proud to represent dynamic Muslim and Arab- American communities in Michigan. I have seen that these patriotic communities are often the first to denounce senseless acts of violence that pervert the Islamic faith. Mike Pompeo also has close ties to a group that is a Southern Poverty Law Center ``designated hate group'' because of its anti-Muslim rhetoric and conspiracy theories. I seriously question the judgment of an elected official who would work with such a group, and I do not believe it shows the type of character required in an individual who is nominated to be our country's top diplomat. How can someone with this attitude work effectively with our allies and partners in the Middle East? I don't think he can. Mr. Pompeo has also supported bringing back waterboarding and other torture measures that do nothing to keep America safe and go against our Nation's core values. We now have a President who has said that he believes that torture ``absolutely'' works. We can do better than this. America is better than this. I voted to ban the use of waterboarding and other so-called enhanced interrogation measures because they do not work, and in fact, they violate basic human rights, undermine our Nation's counterterrorism missions, and place our own servicemembers at risk. Confirming a Secretary of State that has condoned torture is just another step in our Nation's current retreat from being what President Ronald Reagan called ``a shining city on the hill.'' I am concerned that Mike Pompeo will also continue the United States' retreat from a leadership role in addressing climate change--an existential moral and economic issue that will impact our planet for generations to come. Director Pompeo has criticized the Paris climate agreement and has made statements that contradict the overwhelming scientific events on climate change. Our Nation faces serious global challenges: Russian aggression, North Korea's nuclear weapons program, instability in the Middle East, and China's ongoing efforts to expand their power and influence. The world is looking to the United States for leadership. This is a time when skill and experienced diplomacy is essential to advance our interests and our values on the world stage. I do not believe that Director Pompeo has the necessary experience, diplomatic skills, and values required to be the Secretary of State. I will oppose his nomination this afternoon. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering a divisive nominee to sit on the Fifth Circuit Court. It completely baffles me that this administration continues to put forth nominees who are either clearly unqualified or intensely partisan and controversial. This body has historically worked together to confirm consensus nominees to serve on the appellate bench. Unfortunately, that has not been the case over this past year. We have seen contentious nominee after contentious nominee. Unfortunately, the Republican majority has abdicated its responsibility to instead choose a judicial person of integrity who is willing to find common ground. This afternoon's vote to confirm Stuart Kyle Duncan to the Fifth Circuit Court is a perfect example of a divisive candidate. Mr. Duncan is an extreme nominee. His nomination is a senseless attack on access to healthcare for women, especially women in rural and underserved areas. His nomination is an attack on LGBT civil rights and an attack on free and open access to the ballot for all Americans. One only needs to look at his record. Mr. Duncan served as lead counsel in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a for-profit corporation can have religious beliefs and, therefore, can deny contraceptive coverage as part of their employer- sponsored health insurance plans. I have said this before, and I will say it again, I have never sat next to a corporation in church. Corporations do not have religious beliefs, and a woman should have access to reproductive health services and the freedom to make her own decisions about her own healthcare. In addition to his record of hostility to the self-determination of women, Mr. Duncan has an abysmal civil rights record. Mr. Duncan coauthored an amicus brief in opposition to marriage equality when this important issue was before the Supreme Court. In that same vein of discrimination, Mr. Duncan has repeatedly engaged in efforts to suppress the votes of minority voters. He has defended North Carolina voter suppression measures that were ultimately struck down by the Fourth Circuit. The court determined the discriminatory measures ``targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision.'' Mr. Duncan's nomination is, frankly, unconscionable. Our court system should be a level playing field, where no matter who you are or where you live, you will receive fair and equal treatment. In contrast to that spirit, this nominee has spent a significant part of the past decade advocating for the denial of rights for women, minorities, and the LGBT community. I have absolutely no confidence that this nominee will stay true not only to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law as well. Our constituents sent us to Washington to look out for the best interests of all Americans. That is why we need to move away from divisive nominees and instead focus on the confirmation of qualified consensus nominees. It is clear Mr. Duncan is out of step with mainstream American values, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I rise today to express my concern about the nomination of Congressman Jim Bridenstine to be the NASA Administrator. I will oppose his confirmation when the Senate votes this afternoon. While the nomination is problematic due to Congressman Bridenstine's lack of relevant qualifications and the importance of this position to our Nation, I am deeply concerned about this nomination because it is further evidence of a much deeper problem. I am concerned that this administration does not respect science--especially science in government institutions. So now let's look at the data. The Office of Science and Technology Policy, or OSTP, has four positions requiring political appointment, including the Director, who also serves as the President's Chief Science Adviser. The President has made zero--zero--nominations to OSTP and has now taken significantly longer than any other modern President to name a science adviser. Let's look at how the President's delay compares to past administrations on both sides of the aisle. Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton all named a science adviser before they even took office. Presidents Reagan, Carter, and George H.W. Bush all named their science adviser within 4 months of taking office. President George W. Bush waited the longest, but he still chose to pick a physicist to fill the role by June of his first year in the Presidency. When it comes to prioritizing science in the executive branch, President Trump is not normal. You could say this administration is an outlier or an anomaly. This is the same President who flirted with anti-vaccine conspiracy theories as a candidate and regularly suggested that climate change is a hoax. I am not saying that his lack of a science adviser is causing the President's ill-informed views, but I am saying there is, indeed, a very clear correlation. It is not just the top science positions that are empty or filled by unqualified nominees either. A talk radio host and a political science professor was nominated to be the Chief Scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Political science may be interesting to all of us here in the Senate, but it doesn't have much to do with agricultural science. Of the 43 nominations the administration has actually made to science-related positions, almost 60 percent do not have advanced degrees in science or health-related fields. A White House that does not respect science will hold our Nation back. We have historically been a leader in science, and it has unleashed trillions of dollars of economic growth and created millions of jobs. Investment in research and development has been the seed corn for growth in our country and for its economy. This administration's blatant disregard for science risks ceding that leadership to our competitors, like China, who are making unprecedented commitments in this area. I do not believe that the Chinese Government is pouring money into scientific research just out of intellectual curiosity; it is because they know it will be the biggest driver of competitiveness and economic growth in the 21st century. In addition to strong funding for basic research, we need smart, qualified individuals providing leadership across the American scientific enterprise to make sure this money is being well-spent. We need qualified leaders and scientific experts at OSTP, at NOAA, at NSF, at NIH, and we need them at NASA. NASA has upward of 18,000 employees, 80,000 contractors, and a budget of $20 billion. NASA also is in charge of keeping our astronauts safe and inspiring a generation of young minds as we face a significant shortage of STEM professionals. NASA's research, science, and technology missions need a champion who understands and promotes nuances of the work being done by scientists on their team. In short, NASA needs an Administrator who will be driven by science and not by politics. Looking at all of the data--from NASA to OSTP to the USDA--I can't help but reach the conclusion that this administration does not prioritize science, and this needs to change. I urge my colleagues to vote against Mr. Bridenstine's confirmation today. I also urge the administration to wake up, make science a priority in the White House and across the executive branch, and start nominating respected scientists to the remaining vacant positions. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shawn Moylan, a fellow on my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, our Nation's middle class was built by the hard work of American workers. At a time when our country has become increasingly polarized, we should all be able to agree that everybody should have a fair chance to succeed if they are willing to work hard and play by the rules. These truly American values have inspired generations of workers who stand together and collectively bargain for basic workplace protections such as fair wages, safe workplaces, and reasonable hours. These protections allow American workers and their families to be productive members of the economy and achieve their version of the American dream, but the American dream only exists if hard work is rewarded with the opportunity to earn a good living, provide for your loved ones, and, when it is all said and done, be able to retire with dignity. This is deeply personal to me. As a nurse's aide, my mother found opportunity and led the effort to organize her workplace. She went on to serve as an SEIU union steward. Unfortunately, in the years since I grew up in Rochester Hills, it feels as though the American dream has moved out of the reach for too many American families. Joining or staying in the middle class can be a daily struggle. We must fight every day to support and build the middle class, not chip away at fundamental worker rights. The laws, regulations, and administrative decisions that come out of Washington have a direct impact on American workers, unions, and the middle class. The National Labor Relations Board plays a central role in protecting the rights of American workers. The NLRB was created to safeguard their ability to unionize and engage in collective bargaining for fair workplace conditions. To work as intended, the NLRB must be made up of members deeply committed to representing the interests of American workers. Unfortunately, the nominee we will be considering shortly, Mr. John Ring, does not share this commitment. In fact, he is the third labor attorney President Trump has nominated to the committee with zero--let me say that again--zero track record of representing workers. He has only represented clients on the corporate and management side of labor issues. During Mr. Ring's tenure at one of the country's largest firms, he advised corporations on how to undermine worker protections. He also posted blogs opposing commonsense reforms to modernize union election procedures, classifying the NLRB actions as ``some of the biggest assaults on employer rights in recent history.'' Mr. Ring would join recently confirmed Board member William Emanuel, who quickly ran into ethics trouble based on his history of representing corporations. Just 5 months after Mr. Emanuel's appointment, the NLRB was forced to vacate a major decision related to employer liability due to his conflicts of interest. Yet the administration continues full steam ahead with new nominees with extensive corporate ties and conflicts of interest. This administration is also breaking precedent and all conception of fairness by refusing to nominate new NLRB members in bipartisan pairs. Despite a pending Democratic vacancy on the panel, the President and Senate majority leader have instead chosen a partisan approach-- doubling down on the one-sided nature of a supposedly independent Federal agency. This is simply an unacceptable development, and it is an ongoing effort to silence our Nation's workers. Protecting American workers, the American middle class, and the American dream should not be a partisan issue. I am deeply concerned with Mr. Ring's appointment to the NLRB. If confirmed to the five-member Board, the voting majority of an agency charged with protecting workers' voices will be stacked with members who are focused on undermining fundamental worker rights. I think employers should be treated fairly but not at the expense of our Nation's workers and the American middle class. We need a balanced and fair NLRB, and we need NLRB members who will stick up for American workers and the middle class. Mr. Ring will not be that kind of NLRB member. The administration and the majority are actively preventing seating someone who will stand up for workers. I will be voting against Mr. Ring's confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, my home State of Michigan has the best and most productive workers in the world. Michigan workers built the American auto industry and the American middle class, and they continue to roll out cutting edge innovations. Our farmers and agricultural producers deliver an incredible diversity of fresh products to American families day in and day out. Our cars, trucks, crops, timber, furniture, and more are shipped across the United States and exported all across the globe. In America, we believe that if you work hard and you play by the rules, you will be able to support yourself and your family and prosper. Unfortunately, our Nation's workers and businesses are too often facing unfair competition from foreign competitors. Our businesses, which play by the rules and pay their workers a fair wage for a hard day's work, too often lose business to foreign competitors who cheat. It is one thing to lose a sale to a competitor that has the right product at the right time or is better positioned in the market--that certainly happens--but it is another thing altogether to lose because an international competitor is being subsidized by a foreign government or deliberately dumping goods below cost to drive American companies out of business. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. Large companies are able to directly combat these practices by hiring teams of lawyers to enforce international trade rules, but what about family farms, small auto parts suppliers, and other small manufacturers that don't keep international trade lawyers on their payroll? American small businesses, family farms, and the workers who show up every morning can outcompete anyone on this planet if they are given a level playing field. It is time to give them that level playing field. We should be using the expertise and the strength of the Federal Government to stick up for these small businesses and give them a fair fight. Under current law, the Commerce Department has the authority to start their own trade investigation into these harmful trade practices, but they barely ever use it. That is why I have introduced the Self- Initiation Trade Enforcement Act with my colleague Senator Burr. This bipartisan legislation will strengthen protections for small businesses and their workers by creating a permanent task force within the Commerce Department to support proactive investigations into unfair trade practices by foreign competitors. This task force will research trade data, spot abusive, unfair trade practices, and start formal investigations. This task force will also focus on cases impacting small- and medium-sized businesses--the exact businesses that need the support but may not even know how to ask for it. Additionally, putting the weight of the Commerce Department behind these efforts shields these businesses from foreign retaliation. If a small business is able to track international trade data and if they are then able to hire a legal team necessary to successfully prosecute their claims--and believe me, these are two big ifs--they could still face retaliation from foreign governments that could make it harder for them to export after they win their case. An individual cherry grower in northern Michigan, for example, faces nearly impossible hurdles in taking on a foreign government, but the Commerce Department can look out for these small growers across the Nation and be their champion. At a recent bipartisan trade policy meeting that I attended, I was able to speak with President Trump and Commerce Secretary Ross about this bipartisan legislation. They both expressed their strong support, and I will continue working with them and my colleagues in Congress until this legislation is signed into law. Michigan workers and businesses just want a fair chance to compete, and I will never stop fighting for them so they can compete fairly and so they can win. I urge my colleagues to support the Self-Initiation Trade Enforcement Act that will help small businesses and family farms all across Michigan and all across the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Michigan's farmers. Agriculture is a vital part of Michigan's economy. Our State is home to more than 51,000 farmers who contribute over $100 billion to the Nation's economy. Michigan is also the second most diverse farm State in the Nation, growing more than 300 commodities, including a significant portion of our Nation's milk, corn, cherries, cucumbers, and much more. Michigan farmers and farmers across our country feed the Nation and the world, and we must do what we can to support them. Our agricultural businesses rely on the ability to access the resources they need to keep growing, creating jobs, and contributing to our national economy. Access to these resources can be especially challenging for new farm operations that are just getting started, including small farms that make up 82 percent of Michigan's agricultural producers. Small farms that are just starting out and are facing tough economic conditions sometimes struggle to have access to affordable credit. These businesses rely upon important services provided by the Farm Service Agency, which works with lenders to guarantee and deliver small-dollar loans to the small farmers who need it most. Farm Service Agency loans and guarantees can help farmers cover urgent operating costs like feed, seed, and fertilizer to get them through the season. Without these loans, farmers could lose their ability to purchase equipment and other necessities for the planting season and could be forced to curtail their operations. Currently, more than 2,300 farms in Michigan have Farm Service Agency loans, totaling more than $630 million. Across the country last year, the Farm Service Agency made and guaranteed almost 40,000 loans, totaling over $6 billion. This program is in such high demand that in 2016, the Farm Service Agency ran out of money to finance operating loans. This included more than 1,000 loans that have already been approved. This led to a backlog, and farmers were forced to wait for months until Congress passed emergency funding to get the loans they needed for their day-to- day operations. Access to capital is critical across a range of businesses, but it is incredibly important for our small farmers. They can lose out on an entire growing season if they can't buy the equipment and the supplies they need while they wait on Congress to fund the Farm Service Agency. This year the FSA loan programs are again on track to exceed available funding, and if that happens, farmers will again be stuck waiting on Congress to receive the loan they deserve and need. That is why I introduced bipartisan legislation this week with my colleague, Senator David Perdue of Georgia, to provide greater flexibility to the FSA loan program to continue serving farmers during periods of high demand. My bill--the Farm Service Agency Loan Flexibility Act--would allow the FSA program to increase its loan authority in years when the demand for loans unexpectedly exceeds the supply of funding. The legislation would enable FSA to increase the available loan funding by up to 25 percent for the fiscal year for self-funding loans and guarantees that do not require appropriation. It would also authorize FSA to increase the loan cap by up to 25 percent for FSA direct loans that require budget authority and would allow FSA to draw stopgap funding for these direct loans from the Commodity Credit Corporation. I am proud to have the support of the Michigan Farm Bureau, the Michigan Agri-business Association, the American Bankers Association, and the National Farmers Union, among many others. Like our small businesses, students, and families, America's farmers deserve to have affordable loan options. They deserve our attention and they deserve our support. I urge my colleagues to support the Farm Service Agency Loan Flexibility Act to help meet the financial needs of our farming communities as they support and sustain us each and every day. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, a community built without access to drinking water would never be expected to grow and thrive. Parents wouldn't move their children to a home where they don't have running water for bathing and for drinking. Restaurants wouldn't be able to cook and keep their kitchens clean. Manufacturers wouldn't build new factories where they couldn't access water for cooling and other types of processes. Simply put, a community without access to water would fail. Being connected to high-speed broadband in the 21st century is as critical to the prosperity of rural communities as being connected to running water. I have seen it firsthand. While meeting with Michiganders in Barry County, we discussed recent economic development. Part of the county is seeing new construction of homes, the creation of new businesses, and an influx of young families. The other part of the county has seen much more limited growth. You can guess which part of the county is set up for broadband and which isn't. My constituents from Barry County know that high-speed internet is the key to economic growth, educational opportunity, and access to limitless services, information, and ideas. Our rural communities and our Nation as a whole are now at a crossroads. We have the opportunity to level the playing field for all Americans by making the right investments, right now, in rural communities across our Nation. These towns are not connected to broadband by choice. They are not connected to broadband because it is simply too expensive to deploy in these geographic areas. Local city councils in rural areas must struggle to fund broadband projects themselves or they struggle to convince providers that it makes economic sense to invest in their communities, especially in places where populations are small or spread out. While deployment can be expensive, high-speed broadband is not a luxury. It is critical infrastructure. High-speed broadband is critical infrastructure the same way that the pipes that carry our water and the wires that carry our electricity are critical infrastructure. The Federal Government has a role to play in infrastructure when it comes to the national deployment of life-changing, critical innovations. We have been here before. In the 20th century, the United States faced a parallel challenge with the deployment of electricity. It took strategic Federal action to bring electricity to less populated rural areas. These commonsense investments raised our overall standard of living and spurred productivity in an agricultural sector that was at risk of falling behind urban-based industries. If we can successfully electrify a nation, then we have no excuse for not connecting it to the internet in the modern era. Rural electricity was the breakthrough in the 20th century. Universal high-speed broadband will be the breakthrough of the 21st century, provided we invest in it. Any serious national infrastructure package needs real Federal investment in rural broadband. Unfortunately, the Trump administration's infrastructure proposal utterly fails to recognize the urgency for robust connectivity nationwide, especially for communities caught on the wrong side of the digital divide. The administration's plan fails to provide any dedicated funding for rural broadband. Strategic Federal investments are needed to fill in the gaps for States and local communities struggling to keep up with the internet demands of today, let alone getting ahead of the connectivity demands of tomorrow. This administration's infrastructure proposal would only create more gaps. Although the administration is advertising their infrastructure proposal as a $1.7 trillion plan, $1.5 trillion of it would fall on the backs of cash-strapped State and local governments. If this is all they are proposing, this is simply a lost opportunity. If this is all they are proposing, this administration is setting up our communities for failure. What are they actually proposing? They are proposing toll roads and hiking State and local taxes. They aren't even being subtle about this. It is in black and white. The administration's plan says: ``Providing States flexibility to toll existing Interstates would generate additional revenues.'' Michiganders did not send me to the U.S. Senate because they want toll roads and higher local taxes. As a candidate, President Trump promised real Federal investment in communities across our great Nation. Now this administration is offering up State and local taxes and tolls to pay for roads, bridges, waterways, and zero dedicated dollars--zero dedicated dollars--for broadband expansion. As I said earlier, any serious national infrastructure plan needs real Federal investment in rural broadband. Universal broadband means rural prosperity, continued economic growth, and international competitiveness. We must invest in this goal in order to reach it. I urge my colleagues to join me in making real investments in rural high-speed broadband a top priority in any infrastructure legislation. All of our friends, family members, and neighbors in rural communities across our great Nation are counting on us to deliver this. I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, last year, Congress passed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which imposed tough new sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea. There was broad bipartisan agreement on the need to put these enhanced sanctions into place. The legislation passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 2 and in the House by a vote of 419 to 3. In combining both Chambers, the vote was 517 to 5 in favor of enacting these sanctions. The legislation passed with a veto-proof, broad, bipartisan majority. It can be very difficult to get 500 Members of Congress to agree on anything, but imposing sanctions on Vladimir Putin's cronies and those who do business with him should be a no-brainer. Just last week, we learned that the Trump administration had chosen not to enact these sanctions. Yet, on the same day that the Trump administration argued the sanctions were not necessary, President Trump's own CIA Director said that Russia will continue to attack our democracy. He said: ``This threat is not going to go away. The Russians have been at this a long time, and I fully expect they'll continue to be at it.'' In January 2017, the CIA assessed: ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election.'' In January of 2018, the CIA Director confirmed he believes that Russia will continue to assault the 2018 elections. Yesterday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that Russia is already trying to impact the 2018 U.S. election and that it will be difficult for the United States to preempt it. It is clear that we have not done enough to deter Russia from interfering in our democracy, but the Trump administration is choosing not to put in place sanctions on Putin's cronies whom over 99 percent of the Members of Congress supported. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. Earlier this week, we received a briefing from Secretary of Defense Mattis on the recently completed national defense strategy. That strategy identifies that Russia is seeking to discredit and subvert democratic processes all across the world and to shatter the NATO Alliance. Russia is expanding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal and has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council that provides it veto power in a critical international organization. In quoting directly from the national defense strategy, Russia is attempting to ``change European and Middle East security and economic structures to its favor.'' What does it mean, and I quote again, to attempt to ``change . . . security . . . structures to its favor''? One example is Russia's continued support of the Assad regime in Syria, which continues to use chemical weapons against its own people. Russia uses its role on the Security Council to prevent the international community from holding Assad responsible for these obvious crimes against humanity. At the same time that President Trump's Ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, has called Assad's use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people a tragedy and has called on Russia to allow the Security Council to adopt a resolution that condemns the use of chlorine gas to suffocate children, President Trump is refusing to enact sanctions to punish Russia. Russia presents real challenges to the security and prosperity of the United States. The purpose of economic sanctions is to impose a cost on Putin and demonstrate that the United States will punish those who threaten this country. That is why over 500 Members of Congress came together to enact new sanctions. If the United States cannot take meaningful action by enacting sanctions that have been passed on a bipartisan basis, how can we expect to take on the more vexing challenges? This one should be easy. What kind of signal does it send to Vladimir Putin when the administration puts the Kremlin and Russian plutocrats ahead of the U.S. Capitol, duly elected Members of the U.S. Congress, and the American people? I urge President Trump to take action on behalf of the American people and follow through on the will of Congress by enacting these sanctions, which are already law. The administration should use the power provided by Congress to punish Vladimir Putin, his inner circle, and those who do business with them to enrich the Putin regime. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. PETERS

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

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I believe every campaign for elective office in this great Nation is essentially a months-long job interview with the voters or, perhaps more accurately, it is thousands and thousands of individual interviews. Like any employer, the voters have expectations for us once we have been hired to do this job. I will never forget I work for the people of Michigan, and I feel very fortunate to have earned the opportunity to serve them. When I ran for the U.S. Senate, I told Michiganders I would be a pragmatic problem-solver and stand by that promise each and every day. We were all sent here to be problem-solvers, especially the hard problems. Making the effort to participate in our democracy is fundamentally optimistic. Voters want us to make their lives and our Nation better. Every Senator elected to this body carries the hopes, the dreams, and the expectations of the people who live in their State. While we should never lose sight of our Nation's hopes and dreams, today I wish to focus on expectations. Americans expect us to work together. They expect us to talk to each other. They expect us to negotiate and find common ground where we disagree. They expect us to help our fellow Americans after disasters. They expect us to respond to crises like the opioid epidemic and dangerously underfunded pensions that jeopardize their retirement security. They expect us to keep our borders secure and enact reasonable human immigration policies that keep our Nation competitive and boost economic growth, and they expect us to responsibly fund the Federal Government. None of us should be proud of the recent government shutdown. There is no such thing as a good government shutdown. I am nevertheless hopeful that lessons can be learned from last weekend and a better path forward can be found. I think the coming weeks and months are of vital importance to the future of the U.S. Senate as a meaningful, functional institution. Let's be honest with ourselves and with the American people. In the last few years, we have not been functional. We have blown deadline after deadline. It took us almost 4 months past the funding deadline to tackle the easiest problem: reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, a program that provides healthcare to millions of Americans children, while saving taxpayers money. As I stand here, healthcare for over 600,000 Michiganders--including over 12,000 Michigan veterans--remains at risk because we have blown through deadline after deadline to fund community health centers, a program that provides cost-effective care to millions of Americans in both rural and urban areas across our country. How is it that a nation that put the first man on the Moon still can't put lights on for our own American citizens in Puerto Rico? We need to help families clean out their flooded homes in the gulf, support communities that have faced out-of-control wildfires and mudslides during the devastating 2017 disaster season, and ensure affordable flood insurance is available to every homeowner who needs it. Americans stand by each other in the face of tragedy. This is why Senator Stabenow and I fought for a year to deliver Federal resources to Flint and continue working to make sure families are receiving the care they need and get their damaged pipes repaired. In addition to addressing all of these urgent issues, we need to keep the lights on in the Federal Government, where funding is set to expire again in just 2 weeks. While the government was shut down this past weekend, I worked with a bipartisan group of Senators pulled together by my colleagues Senator Collins and Senator Manchin. This group is called the Common Sense Coalition, and we worked through the weekend to find a bipartisan compromise to open the Federal Government and find a path forward to tackle the complex, pressing issues before us in Congress. While the lights are back on, the real work is just beginning. In the coming weeks, we need to find a legislative solution to provide certainty to the Dreamers--young men and women brought to the United States as small children. They grew up as Americans, went to school here, served in our military, only speak English, and are every bit as American as you and I. They graduate from our colleges and universities and provide critical talent to a growing American economy. They start their own small businesses and create jobs in our communities. They are young adults who voluntarily came out of the shadows to participate in the DACA Program and are fearful they will be ripped from their home and be deported to a country they have never visited, a country where they don't even speak the language and will find themselves a stranger in a foreign land, which is an absolutely terrifying situation. Without question, we must also pass a disaster relief package to help communities devastated by the hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. We must also reauthorize the Community Health Center Program that provides essential healthcare to Americans and over 600,000 Michiganders. We must do more to fight the far-reaching opioid epidemic that is hurting and killing far too many of our friends, family, and neighbors. The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis that touches everyone in every State and every county. We need to deliver certainty to the hard-working Americans who spent decades earning their pensions and now see them at risk as they prepare to enter retirement, and we must follow through on our most basic of duties. We need a bipartisan deal to fund the government that takes care of the men and women who serve our country in the armed services, keeps us safe, and properly funds both our military and domestic programs. This will not be easy, but solving easy problems is not why we were sent to the Senate. I ran for the U.S. Senate to solve the tough problems facing our country, and I know my colleagues in the Common Sense Coalition ran to solve tough problems as well. We need the entire Senate and the House to start acting like one, big Common Sense Coalition. No organization or business can run their budget in 2- or 3- week increments. The Defense Department and all of our domestic agencies need certainty for budget planning just like any household or business does. We cannot let the American people down any longer by kicking the can down the road with another series of short-term budget patches. The coming weeks will be difficult, but we need to rise to the occasion and deliver on all of these responsibilities. Now is the time for us to step up our game. The American people expect and deserve nothing less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 200th anniversary of Macomb County, MI. Situated along Lake Saint Clair in the southeast corner of Michigan, Macomb County is built on industry and entrepreneurship and populated with dedicated citizens and entrepreneurs. French fur trappers were the first Europeans to arrive in the area during the 17th century, and when they recognized the possibilities presented to them within the area's marshes, they sought new opportunities for trade. Moravian missionaries later established the first organized, non-native settlement in the area in 1782 as a refuge for Native Americans who had converted to Christianity along the banks of the Clinton River. In March 1780, Christian Clemens purchased a distillery, which is considered the first building on the site of the future city of Mount Clemens. The next year, he bought 500 acres for development, and the site became known as High Banks. On January 15, 1818, Macomb County was formally organized as the third county in the Michigan territory and was named in honor of General Alexander Macomb, a highly decorated veteran of the War of 1812. High Banks was platted as the Village of Mount Clemens and named the county seat. Starting in the early 1800s and continuing until 1840, settlers began moving into the interior of the county and carved out farms from the hardwood forests. Families began focusing on agriculture as the roots of county villages and towns began to be established by this time. Germans, Belgians, and other Europeans also began joining the original French and English settlers during this time. During the 1870s, mineral baths brought international fame to Mount Clemens as many thought the waters had healing powers, though interest in the spas eventually died out in the early 20th century. Between 1920 and 1930, Macomb County saw its first population spike when it more than doubled from 38,000 to 77,000. This was caused by the establishment of Selfridge Field in 1917, now the Selfridge Air National Guard Base, and the beginning of the migration of automotive workers moving out of the city of Detroit. During the 1940s and 1950s, the suburbs again saw a population increase but the largest instance of growth occurred between 1950 and 1970, when more than 440,000 moved to Macomb County and helped make it one of Michigan's largest counties. Today Macomb County encompasses 27 local municipalities that nearly 1 million Michiganders call home. Like our country, its people come from different backgrounds and ethnicities and share many different cultures. There are robust urban clusters, a prosperous manufacturing and economic industry throughout that is home to more than 18,000 businesses, and beautiful natural features and agricultural lands in the north. All of this has contributed to Macomb County having over 865,000 residents, making it the third most populated county in our great State. Macomb County has been an integral part of Michigan and our great Nation for 200 years. As a fifth generation Michigander living in the southeast Michigan area, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this significant milestone for one of Michigan's most important and storied counties and all those fortunate enough to call it home. I wish Macomb County continued growth and prosperity for many years to come.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 150th anniversary of Bethel African Methodist Episcopal--A.M.E.--Church in Saginaw, MI. This occasion commemorates the humble beginnings of Bethel A.M.E. from a church of 6 to now more than 1,000 congregants, celebrating 150 years of faith, fellowship, and family. Bethel A.M.E. Church, the first African-American church in Saginaw, began in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Allen Ford, with six congregants in 1867. The church began to rapidly grow and became the social and religious foundation and place of refuge for African Americans in the community. As Bethel A.M.E. rose in prominence, it attracted the attention of notable figures, including abolitionist and women's rights activist Sojourner Truth in 1871. Over the past 150 years, more than a dozen pastors have led Bethel A.M.E. and have left lasting contributions to the church's fundamental mission and community outreach. Reverend J.A. Dean's passion for ministering to youth laid the foundation for youth programs such as the Daily Vacation Bible School and the Carver Center of National Youth Organization in Saginaw. Each pastor had a hand in the expansion of the church. Reverend Isaiah Snelling spearheaded the development of a new church complex. After 12 years, the construction was completed under Rev. Harold C. Huggins' tenure in 1967. Bethel A.M.E. celebrated the church's centennial and dedication of the new development within the same year. Bethel A.M.E. has had many successes over the years and has also endured great tragedy. Kenneth Bowman stepped into the role of substitute pastor when Rev. R.C. Boyd, who served from 1949 to 1954, became ill. Pastor Bowman accomplished many goals within his 1-year tenure, until he was killed in an automobile accident on March 13, 1954. Soon after, Pastor Boyd passed away on March 18, 1954, succumbing to his illness. Through the tragedies, Bethel A.M.E. held true to its motto: ``Love Conquers All,'' by providing for the physical and spiritual needs of the Saginaw community with steadfast and compassionate stewardship by organizing missions, youth programs, and prison ministries. Bethel A.M.E. also feeds the hungry, assists residents experiencing homelessness, and operates both a credit union and daycare center. Today Bethel A.M.E. Church, led by Pastor Dennis Laffoon, is the oldest African-American church in the Great Lakes Bay Region. Their membership has grown from its six founding members into a proud and active body of more than 1,000 strong. In its 150 years, Bethel A.M.E. has been a community institution, spiritual refuge, and civic leader in Saginaw. I am pleased to rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the historic milestone of the 150th anniversary of Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church. From modest beginnings in that little home on Fourth Street to expanding its square footage and its mission to pass on the blessings they have received onto the community, Bethel A.M.E. has much to celebrate. I wish the leadership and congregation continued success and prosperity in the years ahead.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, tonight the Senate will vote on a tax bill that will provide large corporations and wealthy individuals with a massive tax cut. The bill will result in well over $1 trillion in debt that will be passed on to our children and our grandchildren. The bill will result in dramatically lower taxes for people who earn their living off of stocks and investments, for people who inherit millions of dollars from their parents, and for the CEOs of multinational companies. By the time the bill is fully implemented, it will lead to higher taxes and higher healthcare costs for millions of hard-working Americans who show up each and every day to do their job and to earn a living. This bill we are voting on today was written in secret in an entirely partisan fashion, without input from nearly half of the Senate. But it didn't have to be this way. If we wanted to give middle-class families a real tax cut, we could have. Instead, we are voting on a bill that has benefits for middle-class families that will expire just to pay for permanent tax cuts given to multinational corporations. If we wanted to reform the Tax Code, to take away loopholes for offshoring our jobs, and to help create good-paying jobs here in the United States, we could have. Instead, we are voting on a bill that does nothing to target offshoring or job creation. What will it do? Well, CEOs have told us directly that they are going to buy back stock, which mostly benefits the wealthiest shareholders and the CEOs with stock options. When we know that over a third of the stocks that trade on the market are held by foreign investors--foreign investors are holding half of the value of the stock market--it is just impossible to argue that this bill is focused on Michigan families. If we wanted to make the Tax Code simpler for small businesses, we could have. Instead, we are voting on a bill that includes some of the most complicated provisions you could possibly imagine for a small business owner. If we really wanted to tackle our fiscal challenges in a responsible way, we could have. Instead, we are voting on the most fiscally irresponsible bill that I have ever voted on, adding $1.5 trillion to the debt that our children and grandchildren will be responsible for, all while doing next to nothing for middle-class families. This is not the way we are supposed to make policy in this country. The bill that is on the floor tonight is here without any hearings. We didn't hear from a single expert on the specifics of the bill--not a single economist, not a single small business owner, not a single middle-class family. It is simply wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote no and to defeat this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam President, there are a handful of innovations over the years that have redefined the United States and the entire world. The cotton gin, railroads, electricity, and the automobile are just a few examples. However, without question, broadband internet is one of the defining innovations of our time. Broadband internet connects both rural and urban communities to vital services such as telemedicine, educational resources, and international commerce. In fact, broadband internet is absolutely essential for communications in the modern era. It lets us keep in touch with our loved ones no matter where they live, and it has boosted productivity across every single industry. Perhaps most importantly, broadband internet revolutionized our economy and has led to millions of new jobs. The ability to instantly reach consumers wherever they live has allowed American small businesses and startups to compete with large global corporations in a way that would have been simply unimaginable just a couple of decades ago. Michigan is home to over 850,000 small businesses and a growing number of startups. The new ideas and creative solutions they generate put America on the cutting edge of a global and interconnected economy. Michigan small businesses are able to compete and innovate because of the free and open structure of the internet, but, unfortunately, these opportunities are at risk. Tomorrow the FCC will vote to eliminate current net neutrality protections that stop large corporations from stifling small businesses and harming the American people. I think the facts are very straightforward, and the FCC is wrong. They should stop what they are doing and keep the current protections in place. The current rules that I have consistently supported prevent internet service providers from blocking, slowing, or prioritizing web traffic for their own financial gain at the expense of small businesses and every day internet users. The FCC's actions to roll back these protections could usher in a new era of a two-tiered internet--one for the large corporations that can pay for the fast lane and a slow lane for the rest of us. This will allow internet service providers and multinational corporations to compete unfairly against startups, slowing down their traffic and playing gatekeeper to potential customers. Let me be clear. Repealing net neutrality is anti-innovation, repealing net neutrality is anti-competition, and repealing net neutrality is anti-consumer. The FCC should not consider this proposal tomorrow to degrade internet service, especially during a time when over 20 million households in rural America, including far too many in my home State of Michigan, still lack access to high-speed broadband internet. The FCC has a lot of work to do to close the digital divide, and repealing net neutrality is taking our country backward, not forward. If the internet doesn't work for growing small businesses and startups, our economy will be hurt for generations to come. High-speed broadband and net neutrality in the 21st century is every bit as vital as electricity was in the 20th century. All Americans deserve access, regardless of their income or their ZIP Code. We accomplished the goal of bringing electricity to every household in this country in the last century, even in the most rural areas, by making it a national priority. We need to make access to broadband internet with strong net neutrality protections a national priority today. By preserving net neutrality, we put students, artists, advocates, entrepreneurs, and other visionaries, who could be inventing the future and creating the next big thing, ahead of a handful of multinational corporations. The FCC should call off this dangerous vote and, instead, work to ensure that the internet remains a hub of entrepreneurship, creativity, and competition.