John Thune

Mrs. THUNE

Mrs. THUNE. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Richard Clarida, of Connecticut, to be a Member of the Board of Governors, and to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors, and Michelle Bowman, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Board of Governors, both of the Federal Reserve System. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Jeffrey Kessler, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Elizabeth Ann Copeland, of Texas, and Patrick J. Urda, of Indiana, both to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court, and Amy Karpel, of Washington, and Randolph J. Stayin, of Virginia, both to be a Member of the United States International Trade Commission. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Cost of Prescription Drugs: Examining the President's Blueprint American Patients First to Lower Drug Prices.'' Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Election Interference: Ensuring Law Enforcement is Equipped to Target Those Seeking to Do Harm.'' Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 09, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a closed hearing.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the May jobs report came out last Friday, and here are some of the headlines. This is from Bloomberg: ``U.S. Payrolls Rise 223,000; Jobless Rate Matches 48-Year Low.'' This is from CNN: ``Unemployment rate matches lowest point in half a century.'' From the New York Times: ``We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Job Numbers Are.'' In other words, the May jobs report was more good news for American workers. The economy created 223,000 jobs in May. The unemployment rate dropped to 3.8 percent--the lowest rate since April of 2000. That is right. The last time unemployment was this low, the iPod hadn't even been invented. When the Republican-led Senate passed tax reform in December, there were estimates that this historic legislation would create nearly 1 million jobs for the American people. Well, the economy has already created more than 1 million jobs since tax reform was passed and 3.6 million jobs since President Trump was elected. The Republican pro- growth, pro-jobs agenda is working. Government cannot create prosperity. It can't create the jobs and opportunities that Americans need for a secure economic future. Only businesses can do that. But government can create the conditions for economic prosperity. It can make sure businesses are free to create jobs and opportunities by making sure they are not weighed down with burdensome taxes and regulations. As everyone knows, the economy stagnated during the last administration. Recovery from the recession was historically weak. Wages were stagnant, and opportunities were often few and far between. A big reason for that was the fact that businesses large and small were weighed down by burdensome regulations and an outdated Tax Code. So when President Trump took office, Republicans and President Trump made reversing our economic decline a priority. We rolled back burdensome regulations, and in December, we passed a historic reform of our Tax Code. Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Tax Code was not helping businesses grow and create jobs. In fact, it was doing just the opposite, and that had real consequences for American workers. A small business owner struggling to afford the hefty annual tax bill for her business was highly unlikely to be able to hire a new worker or to raise wages. A larger business struggling to stay competitive in the global marketplace, while paying a substantially higher tax rate than its foreign competitors, too often had limited funds to expand or increase investment here in the United States. So when it came time for tax reform, we set out to improve the playing field for American workers by improving the playing field for businesses as well. To accomplish that, we lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which up until January 1 was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We expanded business owners' ability to recover investments they make in their businesses, which frees up cash that they can reinvest in their operations and their workers. We brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century so that American businesses are not operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors. Now we are seeing results. Company after company has announced higher wages, better retirement benefits, bonuses, increased investment, new jobs, and more. A recent survey from the National Association of Manufacturers reported that 77 percent of manufacturers plan to increase hiring as a result of tax reform, 72 percent plan to increase wages or benefits, and 86 percent report that they plan to increase investments, which means new jobs and opportunities for workers. Meanwhile, a recent survey from the National Federation of Independent Business reports that 75 percent of small business owners think the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will have a positive effect on their businesses. The Republican economic agenda is working, and Republicans are going to keep working to ensure that American businesses can thrive and that American workers have access to the jobs and opportunities they need for long-term economic security. While we are doing that, we are also going to continue to focus on the rest of the work the American people elected us to do. As I have said before, Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. While we have been laser-focused on removing obstacles to economic growth and job creation, we have also accomplished a lot of other things so far this Congress. By the end of the Obama administration, our Nation's military was facing a serious readiness shortfall. So this year we made the most significant investment in our military in 15 years, and we are going to continue to make sure that the men and women of our military have the resources they need to meet and defeat the threats of the 21st century. We recently passed legislation that makes much needed reforms to ensure our veterans have access to the healthcare they need, when and where they need it. We also took action to preserve healthcare for children in need by enacting the longest extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program in history, and we repealed ObamaCare's burdensome individual mandate which forced many, many Americans to buy health insurance they didn't want or couldn't afford. We passed legislation to fight sex trafficking, to combat opioid abuse, to help community banks, to increase school safety, to keep energy affordable, and more. Of course, we confirmed a number of highly qualified judges to fill vacancies in our judicial system. Republicans are working to honor the trust the American people have placed in us. We are fighting to make life better for hard-working Americans. We have accomplished a lot so far this Congress, but we know there is a lot more work to be done. We are up to the challenge. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Grenville, SD. The town of Grenville will be celebrating its centennial on June 8 through June 10, 2018. Grenville will host centennial events which include a parade, street dances, a softball tournament, raffles, a pig roast, children events, and much more. Grenville, located in Day County, was given the christened name of Zielona Gora, meaning ``green hills,'' which is an accurate description of the area's beautiful sloping hills and majestic landscape. Since its founding 100 years ago, the community of Grenville remains resilient in upholding South Dakota values. Today the robust traditions passed down by determined settlers continue to endure throughout the Grenville community. I offer my congratulations to the citizens of Grenville on their centennial celebration and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the nomination of Dana Baiocco to be a Commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Ms. Baiocco has dedicated her career to product safety and liability matters, and it is my firm belief that her depth of experience and familiarity with consumer product safety issues will bring an important perspective to the Commission once she is confirmed. Born and raised in Yorkville, OH, Ms. Baiocco attended the Duquesne University School of Law, graduating cum laude in 1997. While still in law school, Ms. Baiocco served as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In 1998, she joined the law firm of Jones Day and became a partner in 2007, where she has dedicated her legal career to counseling clients on product safety and liability issues. In 2011, she became one of the founding partners of Jones Day's Boston office, which opened that same year. Currently, the CPSC retains a 3-to-1 Democratic majority. While the Commerce Committee has favorably reported Ms. Baiocco's nomination, as well as Acting Chairman Anne Marie Buerkle's nomination twice this Congress, both have been unfairly held up by some on the other side. The CPSC deserves a fully constituted Commission of Senate-confirmed leaders. Ms. Baiocco's confirmation is a crucial measure of good governance to restore balance to the Commission. To date, I have not heard a single argument against Ms. Baiocco's abilities. Notwithstanding her extensive qualifications to be an effective Commissioner at the CPSC, however, some of our colleagues on the other side have voiced concerns about her nomination on the grounds that her career representing business clients in the consumer product and liability space may impact her impartiality when considering issues before the Commission. A few have also raised concerns about her impartiality on the basis of her spouse's career as a litigator and partner at the law firm of White and Williams. Well, to my colleagues who harbor such concerns, I would note that the Senate routinely confirms nominees who are lawyers with private practice backgrounds, and we expect such officeholders to advocate for the public interest just as zealously as they once advocated for their clients. I would also remind our colleagues of the role the Office of Government Ethics plays in ensuring that nominees have resolved any actual or apparent conflict of interests before they are even considered by the Senate. The Office of Government Ethics has closely scrutinized Ms. Baiocco's financial disclosures to ensure compliance with all requirements and evaluated Ms. Baiocco's finances and background for conflicts of interest. Further, Ms. Baiocco has formerly pledged in her ethics agreement that she would recuse herself from matters involving her firm, Jones Day, or its clients unless issued a waiver. She also specifically stated in her ethics agreement that she will not ``participate personally or substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which [she knows] a client of her spouse is a party or represents a party'' unless authorized. Additionally, she has complied with all matters concerning the management of her financial assets in the future. It is my firm belief that Ms. Baiocco's experience will afford a unique perspective as a commissioner and serve the CPSC well. There is no legitimate reason to delay her confirmation any further. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support her nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to conclude my remarks regarding this upcoming vote prior to the vote.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Joseph Ryan Gruters, of Florida, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors, Jennifer L. Homendy, of Virginia, to be a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board, and routine lists in the Coast Guard. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Healthcare Workforce: Addressing Shortages and Improving Care.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 2:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a closed hearing. Subcommittee on Cybersecurity The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 4:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Personnel The Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 11 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Seapower The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Strategic Forces The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, at 5:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, tax reform is working. The results of two surveys released last week show that tax reform is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing for American workers. Our goal with tax reform was simple: make life better for American workers. So we took action to put more money into Americans' pockets right away. We cut tax rates across the board, nearly doubled the standard deduction, and doubled the child tax credit. Americans are already seeing this relief in their paychecks. We knew that tax cuts, as essential as they were, were not enough. In order to make life better for American workers, we also needed to make sure Americans had access to good jobs, good wages, and good opportunities, the kinds of jobs and opportunities that would set them up for security and prosperity in the long term. Since jobs and opportunities are created by businesses, that meant reforming our Tax Code to improve the playing field for businesses so that they could improve the playing field for workers, and that is what we did. I am proud to report that it is working. Last week, the National Association of Manufacturers released the results of its recent tax reform survey, and here is what the survey showed: 77 percent of manufacturers planned increased hiring as a result of tax reform, 72 percent planned to increase wages or benefits, and 86 percent report they plan to increase investments, which means new jobs and opportunities for workers. These are tremendous results, and they are exactly what we were looking for with tax reform. Government can make sure it isn't taking too much out of Americans' pockets, but it can't create the jobs and opportunities Americans need for long-term economic security and prosperity. Only businesses can do that. But government can make sure that businesses are free to create jobs by making sure they are not weighed down with burdensome taxes and regulations, and that is exactly what we set out to do with tax reform. Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the government was not helping businesses to create jobs. In fact, it was doing the opposite. That had real consequences for American workers. A small business owner struggling to afford the hefty annual tax bill for her business was highly unlikely to be able to hire a new worker or to raise wages. A larger business struggling to stay competitive in the global marketplace while paying a substantially higher tax rate than its foreign competitors too often had limited funds to expand or increase investment in the United States. When it came time for tax reform, we set out to improve the playing field for American workers by improving the playing field for businesses as well. To accomplish that, we lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which up until January 1 was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We expanded business owners' ability to recover investments that they make in their businesses, which frees up cash that they can reinvest in their operations and their workers. We brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century by replacing our outdated worldwide system with a modernized territorial tax system so that American businesses are not operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors. Now we are seeing the results. I will say it again. Seventy-seven percent of manufacturers are planning to increase hiring, 72 percent are planning to increase wages or benefits, and 86 percent are planning to increase investments, which creates new jobs and new opportunities for American workers. I haven't even mentioned last week's other survey on small businesses. The National Federation of Independent Business released a survey last week that shows that 75 percent of small business owners think that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will have a positive effect on their business. The survey also showed that among small business owners who expect to pay less in taxes next year, 44 percent plan to increase employee compensation, and more than a quarter plan to hire new employees. Those numbers may get even better. As the survey shows, small businesses are just starting to explore all the benefits of the new tax law since small businesses, unlike large businesses, don't have full- time tax departments to plan for and take into account the new tax changes. Most small businesses spend the first part of each year focused on preparing and filing their taxes from the prior year, not to mention running their businesses, which means, with tax day now behind them, they are just now having the chance to explore the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In addition, their tax advisers--many of whom are often small businesses themselves--have also wrapped up most of their filing season responsibilities, so now they can help their small business clients with factoring the new tax changes into their business plans. American workers had a tough time during the last administration. Wages stagnated, and jobs and opportunities were often few and far between. But thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and other Republican initiatives, our economy is turning around. Unemployment is at its lowest level in more than 17 years. Economists have upped their projections for economic growth. And the good news for American workers just keeps piling up--more jobs, more opportunities, higher wages, and better benefits. The American dream is roaring back, and the future is looking bright. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are about to vote on this Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval dealing with this issue of net neutrality. Let me say again what I said at the beginning of this discussion earlier today; that is, I support principles of net neutrality that can be enshrined in law, that actually do address the issues people on the other side are concerned about, whether that is a ban on blocking of lawful content, a ban on throttling of internet speeds, a ban on paid prioritization that would create fast lanes, slow lanes, and that sort of thing. Those are things on which I think there is pretty broad agreement. Frankly, it seems to me, at least, there is bipartisan support for pursuing a legislative solution to this--to put into law, to codify once and for all those principles of an open internet. Instead, we are having this fake argument over a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, which is going nowhere, and my colleagues on the other side know that. All it does is prolong the period of uncertainty in which we have been operating for some time, where internet service providers are not investing in new technologies, innovation, and infrastructure and instead are investing in lawyers and litigation as this cloud of uncertainty hangs over the regulation of the internet. What our colleagues on the other side are proposing is simply this: Regulate the internet like a public utility in the same way that Ma Bell was regulated back in the 1930s, because the law they would use to regulate the internet is title II of the 1934 Communications Act-- basically saying: We want to take a law that is 80 years old and use it to regulate a 21st-century innovation like the internet--the internet that exploded under the light-touch regime that was in place up until 2015. In 2015, the FCC decided they wanted to use the heavy hand of government regulation as opposed to a light touch. What this FCC has said, simply, is that we are going to go back to the light-touch regulation that was in place for the first two decades of its existence, two decades that led to explosive growth, dramatic increases in productivity, and economic opportunity for Americans all over the country. Here we are today talking about a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval that would roll back that FCC's decision in an attempt to restore and put back in place the heavyhanded regulation of title II under the 1934 Communications Act. I think, frankly, that we can solve this issue quite simply; that is, to sit down in a bipartisan way and figure out a way to enshrine into law those principles of an open internet that would ban the things I just talked about--ban blocking, ban throttling, ban pay prioritization, but do it in a way that does not draw on the title II authority that essentially gives the FCC the authority, if they want to, to regulate rates. This is a heavyhanded government approach to regulating the most powerful economic engine we have seen literally in generations. I think the clear vote here today is in favor of legislation that would put those rules into effect and against a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, which is simply an attempt to, I guess, gain partisan advantage with an issue that people seem to think will be useful in the upcoming elections. Honestly, it is not going anywhere. We all know that. I think the sooner we conclude that and the sooner we get serious about sitting down together across from each other and actually putting into law these principles of an open internet, the better off we will all be. I mentioned this earlier today. There are a number of our colleagues who have made statements publicly, as recently as yesterday at a Commerce Subcommittee hearing, where they supported that approach of bipartisan legislation. I had colleagues on the other side who have made public statements--and I quoted some of them today--in support of a legislative solution along the lines of what I am proposing here. Of course, we have had multiple examples of misstatements and hyped-up statements that aren't grounded in any sense of reality, so much so that even a Washington Post Fact Checker came out and said that the statements that were being made by the Democrats warranted three Pinocchios. The L.A. Times just this last week editorialized: ``Rather than jousting over a resolution of disapproval, Congress needs to put this issue to bed once and for all by crafting a bipartisan deal giving the commission limited but clear authority to regulate broadband providers and preserve net neutrality.'' That is the way to do this. It is not to have an FCC that bounces back and forth from administration to administration at the whim of whatever the political wins of the day are or, perhaps even worse yet, spends a lot of time in court litigating this issue--millions and millions of dollars that could be spent investing in innovation and new technology and new infrastructure that could deliver higher, faster speeds, higher quality of services to people across this country, including those in rural areas who have missed out on a lot of this. You are not going to get broadband providers to deliver services or invest in rural areas if they are operating under a cloud of uncertainty, which is what this CRA, if it were successful, would ultimately lead to. I simply ask our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this ill-fated, frankly, charade of an exercise that we are going through in exchange for a true discussion of bipartisan legislation. I mentioned earlier that I had a draft from 2015 that we put together. I have had numerous opportunities to discuss that draft with Members on the other side. We have socialized some of these issues. We shopped them around. It certainly is not the end-all product, but that is what legislation is about. It is about the opportunity to sit down, take input from both sides, and come up with a bipartisan solution. I think that is certainly within our reach here if we are willing to do it, but this is not the way to do it. This is a dead-end canyon, which does nothing to solve the issue. All it does is perhaps whip up some people who are perhaps interested in trying to use this as a political wedge issue, but it is not going to do anything to solve the problem. I urge my colleagues to reject and vote no on this resolution of disapproval, and let's get serious about legislating. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today in support of net neutrality. Let me say that again. I rise in support of net neutrality. Contrary to the assertions that some of our colleagues on the left have made, there are many of us who believe that codifying net neutrality principles makes sense if we really want to solve this problem. What doesn't make sense is this misguided resolution. All of us value the internet. It connects us to commerce, friends, family, news, learning opportunities, and entertainment. Most Americans expect their internet experience to remain free from meddling by anyone. It doesn't matter if it is a cable company or an unelected bureaucrat, Americans appreciate online freedom. If this resolution offered these protections and simply implemented widely supported net neutrality principles, I would support it. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. The resolution offered by Senator Markey would impose partisan, onerous, and heavyhanded regulations on the internet. Some of these regulations lack a fundamental connection to net neutrality principles and harm consumer freedom. Net neutrality, for example, isn't about regulating mobile phone plan offerings to meet a government internet standard. But the Markey resolution would restore rules that the Obama Federal Communications Commission used to scrutinize such popular and affordable plans. Net neutrality principles don't necessitate government rate regulation on companies working to connect Americans in rural areas-- places like my State of South Dakota--or on upgrading existing networks. But, again, the Chairman of the Obama FCC nonetheless defended the need for broad authority to threaten rate regulation, and that is exactly what the Markey resolution seeks to restore. The implicit threat of such government intervention and statements can have a profound impact on innovation and the 21st century internet. The internet has certainly thrived under a model that rejects data discrimination. Needless to say, before 2015, it had never before faced such a threat of increased government control. Net neutrality--the idea that legal internet traffic should operate transparently and without discrimination--doesn't represent the heavy hand of government. The heavy hand of government is, however, plain to see in the plan that Democrats first passed in 2015 and are now seeking to reimpose. The Democrats' plan relies on a legal framework passed by Congress in the 1930s to regulate telephone monopolies. This framework existed for an era and technology that lacked competition and the entrepreneurship of today's internet-based economy. Last year, the new leadership at the Federal Communications Commission widely discarded these rules. Net neutrality wasn't the problem. The Commission's concern was that onerous, depression-era rules were having an adverse effect on efforts to connect more Americans to the internet and upgrade service. For Congress, the path to restore net neutrality protections while avoiding these unnecessary side effects is straightforward legislation. This is what the Los Angeles Times had to say about this in their editorial. Last week, the editorial board of California's largest newspaper wrote an important analysis in an editorial entitled ``Senate Democrats move to revive net neutrality rules--the wrong way.'' The Times wrote: Rather than jousting over a resolution of disapproval, Congress needs to put this issue to bed once and for all by crafting a bipartisan deal giving the commission limited but clear authority to regulate broadband providers and preserve net neutrality. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, what you just heard is an objection to having a reasonable debate. To the point that the Senator from Massachusetts made, clearly the unanimous consent request asks for--calls for--an opportunity to have amendments considered by both sides of this discussion. What that tells me is that what this is about isn't serious legislating; it is about, again, the political theater associated with this congressional resolution of disapproval, which has absolutely no future, is going nowhere, and does nothing to address the fundamental underlying problem that colleagues on both sides acknowledge needs to be address. For the record, I will point out that we did attempt to bring up a serious piece of legislation, one that provides consumer protection, that bans blocking lawful content, that bans the throttling of lawful content, that bans paid prioritization--the very things most of my colleagues on the other side want addressed. Frankly, no piece of legislation is perfect, and I would say to my colleague from Massachusetts that we would be more than willing to enter into a discussion and a debate, with an opportunity to offer amendments, in order to perfect this piece of legislation. But, frankly, if we continue down this path with the CRA, all we are going to do is waste more time--valuable time, I might add--and continue to live in a cloud of uncertainty where one FCC to the next continues to change the rules and where companies spend millions of dollars in litigation in courtrooms on lawsuits rather than ploughing it into infrastructure, investment, and new and innovative technologies that literally could deliver higher speed, faster internet services and higher quality services to people around this country, including those in rural areas who desperately need those types of services made available to them. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE. In reality, all major cable and phone providers have said they will continue net neutrality policies. Under the new rules being put in place, Federal agencies can still take action against privacy violations and unfair business practices by internet companies. In stark contrast, one unavoidable irony of the Markey resolution, as observed by an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, is that it would actually weaken online consumer privacy protections by taking the only agency enforcing them off the beat. If this resolution were ultimately to be enacted--which it won't, but if it were, it would take the Federal Trade Commission, which currently regulates and polices privacy issues, completely out of the equation. To be sure, Congress still needs to set long-term protections for the internet, and it shouldn't delay. But the significant harm uncertainty inflicts on the internet will manifest itself through stifled investment and innovation over time rather than on consumers in a sudden wave of net neutrality violations. That is just a simple fact. After all, the new rules, approved under the Trump administration, closely follow those that long regulated the internet before 2015 and are largely, although not completely, in effect now. One thing I want to continue to hammer is that what we are talking about here are the rules that were in place for the first two decades of the internet. For the first two decades of the internet, we operated under what was called a light-touch approach to regulation. Under that regime of light touch, the internet prospered, flourished, grew, expanded, and innovated to the point where it has become a huge economic engine in our economy. So what was the 2015 FCC ruling designed to solve? That, frankly, is a very good question. But the fact is, what the FCC is proposing to do and will do on June 11 of this year is to go back to the 2015 rules--the rules that were in place for the first two decades of the internet. I would tell you that on June 12, after these rules go into effect, no consumer in this country is going to see any change from what they see today. They are still going to be able to watch the internet--they are still going to be to go to all their favorite social media platforms. There isn't going to be any change from what we have seen up to this point because that is what we are going back to--our rules that were in place for two decades, under a light-touch regulatory approach, that allowed the internet to explode and prosper and grow. The Markey resolution is offered to this body without opportunity for amendment or any bipartisan input about what the rules governing the internet should say. A vote against the Markey resolution is a vote for ending this cynical exploitation of the internet. A vote against the Markey resolution is a vote for the Senate to get to work on bipartisan net neutrality legislation. That is what the L.A. Times said: Pass legislation. That is the best way to solve this, not coming up with this bizarre exercise, which we all know isn't going anywhere but will give the activists and the donors out there on the far left an opportunity to take this campaign to the House of Representatives, where it isn't going anywhere. Of course it would be vetoed by the President even if it did. So all we are doing is stalling, delaying, making it more difficult to get to a solution on this because what it will do is prevent those who are truly interested in a bipartisan solution and answer on net neutrality from coming to the table in order to make that happen. As I have said, we have been working on this for a long time, and I have been looking for a Democratic partner. All we need are a few courageous Democrats who are willing to acknowledge what this is--which is a political, partisan charade--and get serious about bipartisan legislation, because there isn't going to be a single amendment that can be offered to this. This is not going anywhere. If we really, truly want to solve the problem, there are fairminded people who are serious about this who would like to sit down across the table and work on a draft of legislation that would put internet principles in place and would put consumer protections in place but would use a light-touch regulatory approach--not the 1930s approach this resolution would turn to--to regulate the 21st-century internet. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand why any rational, reasonable person could come to the conclusion that using a 1934 law and regulating the internet like a public utility--a Ma Bell telephone company--would be the right approach in the age in which we live where the internet is thriving and prosperous under a light-touch regulatory regime. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2853 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S.J. Res. 52 be returned to the calendar and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2853. I further ask that it be in order for 10 amendments, equally divided, between the managers or their designees and relative to the bill to be made pending; further, that there be 10 hours of debate, equally divided between the managers or their designees, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on any pending amendments; finally, that upon disposition of the amendments, the bill, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, in my hand, I hold the 2015 draft text of legislation I released with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman Fred Upton and Congressman Greg Walden. Since 2015, I have publicly and consistently been ready to work with my colleagues across the aisle on bipartisan net neutrality legislation. Specifically, my draft proposed giving Federal regulators new authority to ban blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of legal internet content. It did this without relying on the heavyhanded use of law written to police phone monopolies, which is what we are talking about here. We are talking about a 1934 law governing the 21st-century internet. Think about that. That is precisely what this resolution would do. I recognize that this draft legislation I came up with isn't perfect. My draft obviously did not anticipate all the concerns my colleagues raised, and of course there is always room for compromise. That is what legislative discussion and legislative negotiation are all about. But I need a partner from the other side of the aisle who shares my commitment to crafting a bipartisan solution that puts net neutrality first. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have certainly expressed a view about the need for legislation. Some of them come up to me privately, offline, and say: You are right. We need to do this legislatively. We need to put clear rules of the road in place. This is not the way to solve this problem. But very few of them are willing to say that publicly. My colleague and the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology told the publication TechCrunch only 6 months ago: ``My point of view--and by the way, I had this point of view when it was President Obama and Tom Wheeler [at the FCC at the time], to the chagrin of my progressive friends--is that we should legislate.'' This statement was made with knowledge and virtually on the eve of the FCC's final vote to disassemble the 2015 rule. So what changed? Why aren't we debating a bipartisan bill instead of this partisan resolution? Some on the other side of the aisle reached the cynical conclusion that exploiting concern about the internet outweighed the value of working with Republicans to pass net neutrality protections. For others who had a genuine desire to work with me, the forces of a highly politicized campaign to impose a Democrat-only solution can overwhelm the best of intentions. Make no mistake--the campaign behind this Congressional Review Act resolution has been primarily driven by fearmongering hypotheticals, misdirection, and outright false claims. To make that point, this March, the Washington Post Fact Checker took Senate Democrats to task for a particularly egregious claim that failure to pass the Markey resolution would lead to a slower internet. The fact check concluded that the examined claim--made through the Democratic caucus's official Twitter account--conveyed the false impression that a slowdown is imminent. Fact Checker wrote that ``there's scant evidence that Internet users should brace for a slowdown.'' What that meant is that statement by the Democratic caucus on this particular subject got not one, not two, but three Pinocchios from the Washington Post for being a false claim--from the Washington Post Fact Checker. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the March 5, 2018, Fact Checker be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee intern Sarmat Chowdhury. Sarmat hails from Woodbridge, VA, and is a graduate of George Mason University with a bachelor's degree in international relations and conflict analysis and resolution. While interning for the Commerce Committee, Sarmat assisted the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security. He is a dedicated worker who was always willing to tackle new projects. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sarmat and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee law clerk Jacob Valdez. Jacob hails from Tucson, AZ, and is a second-year law student at Arizona State University. While clerking for the Commerce Committee, Jacob assisted the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security. He is a dedicated worker who was committed to getting the most out of his clerkship. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jacob and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee intern Peter Petrasko. Peter hails from Sioux Falls, SD, and is a graduate of Brown University. Peter is planning to attend graduate school in the fall. While interning for the Commerce Committee, Peter assisted the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, as well as the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security. He is a dedicated worker who was always willing to take on new projects. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Peter for all of the hard work and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the future for American workers is looking bright. A combination of tax reform, which we passed in December, plus other economy-boosting measures, such as lifting burdensome regulations, is starting to produce the kind of economy we need to give Americans access to a future of security and prosperity. Our goal with tax reform was pretty simple: Make life better for American workers. That involved a couple of things. For starters, it involved putting more money in Americans' pockets right away by cutting their taxes, and that is what we did. We cut tax rates across the board, nearly doubled the standard deduction, and doubled the child tax credit. Americans are already seeing this relief in their paychecks, but we knew that tax cuts, as helpful as they are, weren't enough. We needed to make sure that Americans had access to good jobs, good wages, and good opportunities--the kinds of jobs and opportunities that would set them up for security and prosperity for the long term. Since jobs and opportunities are created by businesses, that meant reforming our Tax Code to improve the playing field for businesses so they could improve the playing field for their workers, and that is what we did. I am pleased to report that it is already working. Less than 5 months into the new tax law, business after business has announced good news for workers--pay increases, bonuses, better benefits, like increased retirement benefits, like new and better education benefits, and enhanced parental leave benefits. So far we have more than 530 examples of businesses making things better for their workers and customers, from giant corporations like Apple to small businesses like the Don Ramon restaurant in West Palm Beach, FL. Economic indicators are looking good. Last month, the unemployment rate hit its lowest level since 2000. That is right; the last time unemployment was this low, the iPod hadn't even been introduced yet. Economic growth is on a solid track. The economy's growth rate in the first quarter of 2018 was nearly double what it was during the same period last year. Small businesses are thriving. The president of the National Federation of Independent Business reports: Small and independent business owners are notably confident about the economy. They are reporting that sales are strong, profits are good, and employee compensation is increasing. And many are setting into motion plans to expand. That, again, is from the president of the National Federation of Independent Business. That is borne out by NFIB's recent survey data, which shows the net percentage of businesses raising worker compensation over the last 3 months has increased to 33 percent--the highest level since 2000. That is good news for American workers. Americans had a tough time during the last administration. Our economy stagnated, and American families struggled. But our economy-- and our country--are coming back, and they are coming back stronger than ever. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and other policies we have passed are creating an economy that will allow families to access the jobs, the wages, and the opportunities they need for security today and for prosperity tomorrow. The future is indeed looking brighter.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I recognize 45 South Dakota veterans who are visiting our Nation's capital on May 15, 2018, as part of the Midwest Honor Flight. South Dakota's veterans have played an important role in making our Nation great. Through their sacrifices, America has triumphed, remained a free and vibrant nation, and helped others obtain their own freedoms. I am honored to welcome these American heroes to our Nation's Capital to see the symbols of their sacrifice, and I appreciate the opportunity to meet with them and thank them for their service. We cannot thank our veterans enough for putting their lives on the line when America's security demanded it. The Honor Flight veterans, in alphabetical order, are as follows: Stanley Allen, Jr., William Anderson, Benard Aning, Wallace Bothwell, Gordon Brower, Charles Bryan, Merdith Buchholz, Lucien Charette, James Davis, Elmer Frank, Donald Freese, Donald Gross, Robert Hempel, Arlen Jensen, Leroy Johnson, Kenneth Jorgenson, Harold Kleihauer, Lloyd Kraft, Richard Landsman, Donald Leat, Gordon Leboutillier, Melvin Lubbers, Kenneth Mattheis, Robert Mcclaren, Clayton Mclaughlin, Ronald Mount, Ray Nielsen, Kenneth Peterson, Arvis Raml, Milton Schavee, Eugene Schnider, Ronald Schorg, Arnold Schwarz, Warren Sealey, Ronald Sheard, Richard Sinclair, Wayne Spars, Gordon Spars, John Stene, Gerald Sutherland, Chester Vander Zee, Clarence Vanderlei, Norman Woods, James Yonkers, and Herbert Yost. It gives me great pleasure to honor those who have defended our freedom and to recognize the service and sacrifice of these courageous South Dakotans.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I have said before, Republicans had two goals when it came to tax reform. First we wanted to put more money in the pockets of hard-working Americans right away. Second, we wanted to create the kind of economy that would give Americans access to economic security for the long term. To achieve the first goal, we cut tax rates across the board, nearly doubled the standard deduction, and doubled the child tax credit. Americans are already seeing this relief in their paychecks. To achieve the second goal, we reformed our Tax Code to make it easier for businesses to create jobs, increase wages, and expand opportunities for workers. I am proud to report that less than 5 months since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law, we are already seeing an improved playing field for American workers. There are a lot of things that go into giving a worker a secure economic future: a good job, good wages, opportunities to grow, good retirement benefits, and opportunities to achieve the education necessary for that good job or that wage hike. Sometimes a degree or certification can make all the difference between an OK job and the kind of job that brings financial security for the long term, but getting that degree or certification isn't always easy. Sometimes it can be cost-prohibitive, and sometimes it can be difficult to fit the degree requirements around an existing job. As I have said before, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is already improving the playing field for workers and creating the kind of economic environment that will give more Americans access to economic security for the long term. Businesses are creating new and better paying jobs. They are increasing and raising wages, and they are expanding opportunities. All of these are essential elements of giving workers access to the careers that will give them access to long-term financial security. But that is not all. Businesses are also increasing benefits, including, in several cases, education benefits. Grocery store chain Kroger recently announced its Feed Your Future program, which will provide employees with up to $3,500 a year to put toward their education, whether the employee is working toward a GED or an advanced degree. Both full- and part-time employees will be eligible for the program, which will provide employees with up to $21,000 for their education. The company is even introducing an educational leave of absence, which will allow employees to take time off for approved studies without losing their place at the company. It is not just Kroger. McDonald's is accelerating increased investment in its Archways to Opportunity education program, thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The program will now offer workers $2,500 a year toward their education costs, up from $700 a year previously. There is no lifetime cap on the amount an employee can receive for his or her education. Plus, employees can now work as few as 15 hours a week and still be eligible for the program, which will make it easier for employees to combine a job and an education. Then there is Boeing, which is investing $100 million in training and education for its employees. Express Scripts is investing in the workers of the future by creating an education fund for employees' children. Disney is investing $50 million in an education program for employees, and there are more. It is another way that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is giving American workers access to the resources they need for a secure and prosperous future.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I was reading a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week by Kevin Hassett, who was the Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. His piece made an important point that doesn't often come out as clearly as it should, and that is that when American businesses benefit, American workers benefit. My friends on the other side of the aisle like to obfuscate that point. Presumably they think they can gain political points by pitting businesses and workers against each other, as if benefits for businesses and benefits for workers were somehow diametrically opposed and as if, somehow, workers could thrive while businesses struggle. As the piece I was reading pointed out, ``In a modern competitive economy, workers do well when their employers do.'' If you think about it, it really is just common sense. The vast majority of working Americans work for businesses, whether they are self-employed, an employee of a small business, or an employee of a large corporation. For those employees to thrive, the businesses they are working for have to thrive as well. Struggling businesses do not invest in workers; they can't. They don't hire new employees. They don't raise wages. They don't improve benefits. On the other hand, thriving businesses do invest in their workers, they do hire new employees, they do raise wages, and they do improve benefits. Leaving aside the fact that most business owners want to invest in their workers, successful business owners have to invest in their workers if they want their businesses to keep thriving. For starters, successful businesses tend to need new workers, and the way to attract new workers is with good wages, good opportunities, and good benefits. Once a successful business has good employees, it tends to want to keep them so that the business can keep prospering and thriving. How do businesses keep employees? The same way they attract them in the first place--with good wages, good opportunities, and good benefits. As Mr. Hassett notes in the Wall Street Journal: Research by economists Alan Krueger and Lawrence Summers, both of whom served in the Obama administration, shows that more-profitable employers pay higher wages. Any company that attempts to pay a worker less than he is worth will quickly lose that worker to a competitor. Thus, firms that want to thrive must invest in their plants and their workers. Ask any business owner in the country, and he or she will tell you that it is a competitive labor market. Unemployment is at a 17-year low. In a tight, competitive labor market, employers have to work to keep their employees. Our focus with last fall's tax reform was on making life better for ordinary Americans, so we set out to put more money in their pockets right away by cutting tax rates across the board, nearly doubling the standard deduction and doubling the child tax credit. As a result, for 2018, a family of four making $73,000 will see a tax cut of more than $2,000. We knew the tax cuts, as helpful as they are, weren't enough. Americans also needed access to profitable careers, good jobs, good wages, and good opportunities. We knew the only way to guarantee access to good jobs, good wages, and good opportunities was to make sure businesses were prosperous enough to create and maintain them. So when it came time for tax reform, we set out to improve the playing field for American workers by improving the playing field for businesses, as well, and it is working. Companies are putting tax reform to work. They are investing in new equipment, expanding their facilities, and growing their lines of business, all of which mean more jobs and opportunities for Americans. Most importantly, companies are passing along the benefits of tax reform. Company after company has announced pay raises, bonuses, 401(k) match increases, and other benefits for their workers. Others are passing tax savings on to their customers in the form of things like utility rate cuts. The tax reform law has been in place only for 4 months. As businesses continue to see the benefits of tax reform, we can expect to see the playing field for workers continue to improve. Ultimately, by helping American businesses thrive, tax reform will help give more Americans access to the kinds of jobs, wages, and opportunities that not only will benefit them right now but also will give them access to security and prosperity for the long term.