progress on all of those areas if we add good tax policy to what's been happening, but right now, mr. president, we're talking about judges. president trump has a unique opportunity to shape the long-term view of the judiciary. this week we're going to confirm three circuit judges. i want to talk in just a little bit about what that means, but at the start of president trump's term, 12% of all the federal judiciary seats were vacancy -- vacant. no president has had that kind of opportunity since president clinton had that opportunity now almost 25 years ago when he started his first year, and the president will have the opportunity and is making the most of it to fill those vacancies. i believe president trump made the right choice when he selected justice gorsuch to serve on the supreme court. there was a -- a record as a

circuit judge, you could look at what he had decided. we could look, mr. president, you, and i and other members of the senate could look at what he decided and anticipate what his record would look like and it makes a difference. i have no doubt that president trump will continue to nominate judges who will rule as justice scalia, the last vacancy created with the unfortunate loss of justice scalia who served on the supreme court for 26 years after the person that nominated him left the white house and 13 years after president reagan died. so the legacy of what happens here is important. justice scalia became profound in his sense that the judge -- the work of the court was not to decide what the legislature should have done. the work of the court was to decide what the law said and what the constitution said and

there are ways to change the law and there are ways to amend the constitution. but a person who is on the court needs to look at what the constitution and the law say. that's what makes it so important. the supreme court vacancies send to get a lot of attention, but, frankly, it's just as important to nominate and confirm the jobs that the president and the senate share. and it's our responsibility, too. the constitution could have said we'll report to the senate unless there's some big objection that person becomes a judge, not what it says. it says the senate will confirm. and according to the view this morning of federal vacancies, there are 140 lifetime vacancies on the court, slightly more than 140 to be filled. so far this year we've confirmed

ten circuit judges by the time -- judges. by the time we leave this week, i think we will have confirmed 12 circuit judges. that's got to be close to a post-world war ii record. a long time since world war ii. long time since a president had the opportunity to do that. why do you need to do that? first of all, the people of the country have the right to seek justice and to believe that the rule of law will prevail. the supreme court, mr. president, hears about a hundred, maybe 150 cases in a year, about you the circuit courts, the 12 circuits where you appeal a lower federal court ruling to those 12 circuits, they hear many cases, about 7,000 of those cases are appealed to the supreme court. the supreme court deals with

100, 150 of them. so the circuit judges in the 12 circuits often write what in our structure is essentially final law, the final rule of any court is at the circuit level. the federal bar association says the number of judicial vacancies throughout the court is now straining the capacity of the federal courts to do their job. and in cooperation with the president, we have a job to do here. there's -- their capacity to hear the case is just as important. justice delayed is justice denied. filling these vacancies is also critical to ensure that the balance of the constitution is in place. this is a brand new idea. when james madison and others thought of putting a machine together -- they sometimes refer to the constitution as the instruments that will be the

guidelines for a machine, a machine that was so finely balanced that it would govern itself. the court, the judiciary, the legislative branch, the executive branch all had unique powers. and those unique powers were designed to keep the government in check. a new concept in 1787 but it's worked well for us, but it doesn't work if we allow one of those groups to become out of balance. so filling these vacancies matters. the leadership of the majority leader, the leadership of chairman grassley and his committee all make a difference. by moving forward, as we are this week, as we move through these three nominees this week, we're advancing our goal of restoring the courts to judges who will determine what the law says, not what they think it should say. i urge my colleagues, of course,

to support these well qualified nominees. but i also urge my colleagues on the other side to stop using the process to frustrate the other work of the government. there's a right to 30 hours of debate. and that's what we're in right now. we're in 30 hours of debate on a circuit judge, but nobody is talking about that circuit judge. so other bills that could have been brought to the floor, other issues that could have been dealt with aren't being dealt with because the minority has decided to abuse their power to say we're going to have 30 hours of debate about this judicial nominee and then have no debate about the judicial nominee. doesn't mean we don't need to confirm the judges but it does mean if we did that in the way it made sense to the people we work for, that we'd be doing other business now and these three judges would have already

be confirmed. they will be confirmed this week, mr. president. my belief is that if the rules that are disierched to -- designed to protect the minority in the senate are abused, that those rules don't last forever. eventually you have to say, okay, facts are facts. this rule isn't being used for this way. the senate has to do the people's work and if rules have to be changed to do that, i'm for changing those rules. with that, mr. president, i'd yield the floor. with one statement before i do which is to ask for unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, that at 4:00 p.m. on wednesday, december 13, there be 30 minutes of postcloture time remaining with the willett nomination equally divided between the leaders or their designees and that following the use or yielding back of that

time, the senate vote on the confirmation of the willett nomination and if confirmed, the motion be reconsidered -- the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. blunt: 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. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. blunt: i'd yield the floor, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, this week is a great week for the state of texas and for the federal judiciary because this week we will be confirming two exemplary judges to the united states court of appeals for the

fifth circuit from the state of texas. texas supreme court justice don willett and former texas solicitor general jim ho. these will be the 11th and 12th court of appeals nominees that we will have confirmed this year, a modern-day record. indeed, i looked up just the other day the number of assigned slots on the federal courts of appeals. it's 179, which means the 12 that have been nominated and confirmed this year represent roughly 7% of the appellate bench. that is a powerful accomplishment for the first year of the presidency, a powerful accomplishment for this republican majority in the senate, and a powerful legacy that will extend decades into the future protecting our constitutional rights, protecting the bill of rights, protecting the first amendment, our free speech, our religious liberty. protecting the second amendment, protecting all the fundamental liberties we enjoy as americans.

with respect to don willett and jim ho, i have known the both of them for decades. both are close friends. both are brilliant lawyers. both have spent decades earning a reputation as principled constitutionalists who will remain faithful to the law and will not impose their own policy preferences from the bench. beyond that, both don and jim are testaments to the american dream. they both have taken different paths to the fifth circuit but both of their stories encapsulate what's so great about this nation. justice willett was born donny ray willett. his birth certificate doesn't say donald. it says donny ray in july 1966 to an unwed teenage mother.

he was a sickly and frail newborn who was not eastern expected to -- who was not even expected to survive to christmas. but he was nursed back to health and then adopted by an incredible couple who were unable to have their own children. justice willett grew up in a double-wide trailer in a small town of just 32 people surrounded by cotton and cattle. his town had a cotton gin and a catholic church. that's about it. justice willett suffered heartbreak early in life. his father passed away at age 40, just two weeks after justice willett turned six years old. he was raised by his widowed mother who waited tables at the local truck stop. she would leave the trailer for her 6:00 a.m. shift before justice willett even woke up in the morning. he would wake himself up, get fed, dressed, and then catch the

bus to a neighboring town to go to school. justice willett was the first person in his family to even finish high school let alone to go to college and then to law school. he has four degrees. he got his bachelor's from baylor as a triple major in economics, finance, and public administration. he then received a master's degree in political science, a law degree, and an l.l.m. degree from duke. after law school he clerked on the fifth circuit, the court on which he will soon be serving for judge jerry williams. then after two and a half years at a large law firm, he decided to dedicate his career to public service. he worked for governor george w. bush in texas and then for president bush in d.c. he and i worked closely together in that regard. after doing his time in d.c., he happily returned to the great state of texas to serve as the

deputy attorney general for legal counsel. don served alongside me working under then-attorney general greg abbott. we had offices just down the hall if each other. in -- from each other. in 2005, he was appointed by governor rick perry to serve as associate justice on the texas supreme court, and he's been reelected by the people of texas to that court in 2006 and again in 2012. i can't tell you how proud i am to see justice willett confirmed as a judge on the fifth circuit and to see his lifetime of service continue in this new arena. jim ho took a different path to the fifth circuit, but his story is just as powerful as an example of the american dream. jim was born in taipei, taiwan. he immigrated to the united states with his family when he was just 1 years old. for the first few years of his life, his family lived with

relatives in queens, new york. jim learned english watching "sesame street." his family then moved to southern california where he attended high school and then went on to college at stanford university. in 1996 jim enrolled at the university of chicago law school where he graduated with high honors in 1999. he then moved to texas for the first time in his life accepting a clerkship in houston with judge jerry smith on the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit. again, the same court on which he is preparing to serve. it was during the end of his clerkship in houston that he started dating his law school classmate and now his wife, allison, a houston native and another dear friend of mine. in 2000 jim moved to washington, d.c. to join the law firm of gibson, dunford, and crutcher. in 2001, he joined the u.s. department of justice as a special assistant to the assistant attorney general for civil rights working under now

u.s. labor secretary. later that year, he joined the department's office of legal counsel. after two years at o.l.c., he came here to the senate where he served as my colleagues', the senior senator from texas, senator cornyn, first chief counsel. after two years, jim went to clerk on the supreme court for justice clarence thomas. at the end of the clerkship, jim and allison finally fulfilled their dream of coming back to texas where jim rejoined the law firm of gibson, dunford, and crupper in -- crutcher in dallas. then in 2008, my tenure as solicitor general of texas was coming to a close. and attorney general abbott had told me if i was going to leave, i had to find my successor. i picked up the phone and called my long-time friend jim ho and talked to jim about coming to succeed me as solicitor general.

jim came, agreed to take on the job and did a remarkable job as the chief appellate lawyer for the state of texas representing texas before the united states supreme court and all the state and federal appellate courts. jim served as solicitor general from april, 2008, until december, 2010, when he returned to dallas and once again rejoined gibson dunn as a partner and a few years later became cochair of the firm's appellate and constitutional law practice group. jim has done many extraordinary things, but nothing more so than marrying his wife allison, who is, like jim, a supreme court advocate and one of the most talented constitutional lawyers in the country. allison is my former law partner, and when i left the job of solicitor general and went to the morgan lewis law firm, i promptly recruited allison to come lead the supreme court practice with me. and i'm proud to say over the past five years, jim's wife

allison has argued more business cases before the united states supreme court than any lawyer in texas. jim has become a pillar of the legal community in texas, and the outpouring of support he has received demonstrates that. to take just one example, i have a letter from ron kirk, the former mayor of dallas and a former member of president obama's cabinet, and incidentally the democratic nominee for the united states senate that senator cornyn defeated in 2002. by any measure, a strong and prominent democrat in the state of texas. mr. kirk writes that, quote, the last time texans got to fill a seat on the fifth circuit, it was judge greg costa who this body confirmed by a well-unanimous vote. as a lifelong democrat and devoted member of the obama cabinet, i ask you to give jim

ho the same unanimous consent. i agree. and i hope our democratic friends in this body will set aside the partisan rancor that has so characterized this year and will listen to the words of one of their own, a member of obama's cabinet, a prominent democrat from texas urging that jim ho be confirmed unanimously. sadly, senate democrats insisted on and provided a party-line vote in the judiciary committee. it is my hope that this full body will demonstrate more wisdom, less partisan animosity than the judiciary committee democrats demonstrates. both jim and don, i am convinced, will make excellent judges on the fifth circuit. they are brilliant, they are principled, they are humble men of deep character. they love their families.

they're wonderful fathers. and i am confident not only will they faithfully follow the law in the court of appeals, but, mr. president, i predict that jim ho and don willett will become judicial superstars. they will become jurists to which other federal judges across the country look. their opinions will be cited heavily. they will be followed in other courts of appeals. their careful, meticulous analysis, their fidelity to law will be held up as exemplars for judges across the country to follow. that is a great accomplishment for the federal judiciary, a great accomplishment for the united states senate, and a great week for the state of texas. i yield the floor.

mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to talk about the tax relief, tax reduction legislation that the conference committee is currently working on. to me, mr. president, and to all americans, this is a very important piece of legislation. i think it's going to get even better as the house and the senate work to hammer out their differences, to help lower the tax rates for american values. you look at this legislation, there are so many policies that will help to make america's economy grow. families across the country will get a tax break. it's what they need. it's what they have been looking for for a long, long time. main street businesses will also get a tax break. when people get a raise like that, they invest in their families and they invest in their communities. they create jobs, wages go up.

the economy grows, and our nation gets stronger. you don't have to take my word for it, mr. president. respected mainstream economists are saying exactly the same thing. they agree that our economy needs to grow, and they agree that the legislation that we are working on, pass the senate, pass the house, being joined together will deliver the growth that our nation needs. in october, the council of economic advisors put out a report looking at some of the ideas for tax relief. now, this is a group that advises the president on economic issues. their report found that the tax plan, like the one republicans wrote, will grow the economy between 3% and 5%. mr. president, that's real growth. it's strong growth, and it's good news for america. now, there was another study that came out in october. that was by a group of economists at the massachusetts

institute of technology and boston university. they did their own calculations, used their own numbers, and they found the exact same good news for the american economy. just like the other report, thee republican tax plan would grow the economy by between 3% and 5%. a third study came out in november. it was by the tax foundation. again, it's a respected group of economists who study this kind of thing for a living. they looked specifically at the legislation as it was written by the senate finance committee passing then the senate. this group found that the plan would increase the size of the economy by 3.7%. that same range between 3% and 5%, but more specific, 3.7%. then there was a fourth analysis by one more group of nine respected independent economists. this group wrote about their conclusions in a letter to the

treasury secretary on november 26. they wrote that they expect this tax relief plan to boost the economy by 3%, again, over the next ten years. so we have four different entities, four different estimates, four different groups of prominent economists. the tax relief plan looked at it different ways, used different analyses. they all found it would grow the american economy by very similar amounts, all by at least 3%. now, mr. president, there was one other study out there that some people have been talking about. this was an estimate by a group called the joint committee on taxation. this group predicts that growth under the republican plan will increase but by just 0.8% over those next ten years. now, that works out roughly to .08% a year. all of these other groups say at

least 3%, maybe 5%, and this other group says no, less than 1% over a decade. hard to believe. so why is this one group that's being quoted often by the democrats so far out of line, out of the mainstream with what other economists are saying? well, the reason they reach such a different conclusion is that they did their analysis very differently from all the other groups. this committee combines a few different economic models into the rest. that's reasonable. but when we look closely at the models they combined, we found that they counted the most pessimistic models much more heavily than they did a more realistic -- of more realistic models. so of course they are going to come up with an overall pessimistic conclusion. i think it can be useful to take these more negative numbers in review, take them into account. nobody thinks that we should just pick through the rosiest scenario or base our policies on one prediction. that's not what's happening

here. here we have four different groups of economists who predict strong economic growth of at least 3%. one outlier, much more pessimistic, much more cautious. another thing to remember is that even this very cautious estimate says that the economy will get bigger because of the republican plan than if we did nothing at all. so even those, the pessimistic group, is saying oh, yes, the economy will grow under the republican plan, and they will say it will reduce deficits by an additional $400 billion over the next ten years. well, mr. president, i think we're going to do a whole lot better than that because our economy is going to grow much faster. under president obama in washington, we had eight years of policies that held back our economy and caused it to grow at a very tepid, slow pace. economists looked at these policies, and they said if

things continue on that path, we can expect the economy to grow by about the 1.8% we have been seeing through the obama administration. with republicans setting the agenda, those policies are history. and so, mr. president, is the slow economic growth that had been created during the obama years. look at what just happened in the two economic quarters of this year. over these six months, our economy grew at a pace of more than 3%, more than 3%. the economy has created more than two million jobs since president trump was elected a little over a year ago. the economy is responding, responding to policies that republicans have been talking about and what we have been doing, in terms of eliminateing eliminations, eliminating so many punishing, burdensome, expensive regulations that have caused such a drag on our economy. when we pass legislation like this tax relief act, it will give businesses confidence that

we are keeping our promises. it gives them confidence that they can keep hiring, keep investing, and keep creating more jobs. and, mr. president, when you take a look at the fact that two million more new jobs since election day of last year, i think someone said oh, no, you have to wait until inauguration day to start counting, i just disagree. i will tell you my home state of wyoming, on election night, when the results were in, it was known that donald trump had been elected president of the united states, there was immediate optimism, immediate confidence, immediate positive spring in people's step. the decision at that point by the american electorate said yes, it's time for this economy to take off, and it has. so when someone comes out with an estimate about economic growth and they don't take account for all of these different things, i think that maybe they are living in the past when they are looking at an economic growth model of 1.8%.

i think maybe they got so used to the anemic growth that we had in the obama years that they are still expecting that to continue into the future. they're not talking into -- taking into account that things are different now, that republicans are passing our economic plans and that the burdensome regulations and the red tape has been cut. they're not taking into account that president trump is in the white house. mr. president, those things make a very big difference when it comes to sustaining this progress that we have seen over the past year. four out of five studies agree agree -- the republican tax plan will deliver the kind of economic growth that the american people want and that the american economy needs. a strong and healthy and growing economy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you. mr. president, i am willing to wager that the teamster net neutrality has no meaning to 99.99% of the american people. it is a term referring to a practice and a set of rules that likely are totally a mystery to the vast majority of people who are affected by them. as often happens in washington, d.c., the terms of art are highly technical and obtuse and obscure but the effects of these rules matter to almost every american ultimately, and they

will be of increasingly important moment to americans if the current net neutrality rules are reversed tomorrow. that's why i'm here because tomorrow the federal communications commission under the leadership of its new chairman ajit pai has a reckless and needless plan to repeal those rules that are vital to a level playing field and fair access of consumers to the internet content that they value and need. to put it very simply, chairman pai's plan would disastrously disadvantage small businesses so

it would harm our economy. it would threaten the internet's incredible success, including innovation. it would harm consumers by giving them higher prices and possibly lower speeds in accessing what they want from the internet. the background here is pretty simple. in 2015 the f.c.c. adopted its open internet order to reserve the open nature of the internet. the internet has slierved on -- thrived on its openness. that is in a sense its spirit and its great advantage. it's uniquely american in that way, open and accessible. the order created three very bright line rules. no blocking, no throttling, no

paid prioritization. nobody could stop access or block it. nobody could diminish the availability, no throttling, and no paid authorization. that is to say, nobody gets a benefit from faster speeds simply because they pay more. and those rules really put the internet at stake. the vitality and innovative energy is at stake here. blocked sites, slower speeds, fast lanes and slow lanes, and more fees, that will be our future on the internet if these rules are revoked, as chairman pai says they will tomorrow. and today's internet service providers, some of them, will

benefit. they already have clear conflicts of interest. they own content companies. they want their customers to spend more time on their content. comcast, for example, owns the media giant nbc universal. verizon owns yahoo and a.o.l. we are having a hearing this afternoon that involves comcast and nbc universal. and i'm deeply troubled by the expiration of the conditions that have been put on the merg merger. those conditions help to protect competition and consumers. they had questionable effect in that purpose, but even the modest comfort or protection they provide will completely evaporate as the conditions

expire. and so i will ask today that there be an investigation by the department of justice to sustain and continue those conditions and that the court that approved them actually extend them to meet the needs of competition and consumers. our current net neutrality rules prevent companies from becoming gatekeepers, toll takers in a way that favors their own content. if they are the gatekeepers and toll takers, they are the ones who block and they're the ones who collect the fees. and if they have the ability to pick and choose between the content providers belonging to their competitors or the content providers that are independent, they're going to choose their

own content providers. they're going to favor their own over the others. and so gutting the net neutrality rules in effect gives them free rein to favor their own content and their own political views. if the internet service providers are able to block content or charge higher fees for access, eventually the ones who suffer are consumers. they will pay higher prices or that content will be slowed in reaching them and make no mistake. companies that are willing to pay the toll for fast lanes will transfer those costs to consumers. they're not going to just absorb the additional expense. and folks who have no idea what that term net neutrality means, who may have never heard it are the ones who are going to pay the freight.

they're going to be the ones who suffer the consequences. these rules have a reason. they weren't simply picked out of the air. they're not the product of some overactive regulatory imagination. they have meaning and consequence for ordinary people who use the internet which is one of the economic giants of our generation, and we are in effect throttling and blocking and raising prices for people who depend on innovation and access and openness. so the right thing to do for chairman pai is to cancel tomorrow's partyline vote and abandon this misguided plan to destroy the free and open internet.

he is acting in # essence -- in essence at the behest of the giants, the cable companies who stand to benefit because they'll raise prices and favor their own content. but no matter what he decides, the fight is only really beginning. we will no doubt bring legislation to the united states senate. not an easy task to pass it. any final action in the f.c.c. unquestionably, undoubtedly will be challenged in the courts. i'm actually hopeful we can avoid litigation. litigation is always the last resort, but there will be litigation because the 2015 open

internet order was actually based on ten years of evidence in a fact-based docket. again, it wasn't pulled out of the air. it's based on fact finding and thought and redrafting that then in fact resulted in litigation. it was upheld in the courts. in fact, in the court of appeals. it was judged to be legal and rationally rooted in real fact. that's the internet order that should be sustained. i hope that chairman pai will postpone this misguided plan. i hope he will abandon it. there's no need to recklessly repeal the net neutrality rules without demonstrating a significant and substantial change in factual circumstances.

and that's what is required statutorily. a significant and substantial change in factual circumstances to justify revoking and repealing a rule that was based on circumstance and fact. and in the meantime, millions of americans have already given their opinion. they've weighed in. they have said to the f.c.c. stop playing with the internet in a way that favors the big guys, the cable companies, the ones who will block throttle and raise prices. we should not allow chairman pai to silence their comments, to ignore them or disregard them. the f.c.c. has a responsibility here. it is a public trust. it matters to the millions of americans who have never heard

and will probably never hear that term net neutrality, who will never understand what its consequences are until they see them up close, personal, firsthand, higher prices, blocking throttling, and that's the evil that we can and must avoid. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i subject the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: are we currently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is indeed in a quorum call. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i come to the floor to talk about the vital importance of the connection between the arts, education, and progress i'm from a little town in delaware named hokesen. it was not much when i grew up there. we had about 15,000 people, dairy farms and mushroom farms. over the last 40 years it's gradually developed and a not much widely noted big day happened back in 1994 there when one of america's greatest jazz performers cab calloway passed

way. he gave his name to a remarkable performing arts school. this is a school that 25 years ago dedicated to the idea that if you want to elevate learning and strengthening education have a robust opportunities in the performing arts. i thought i would use that as an example today to talk about why what we do here is important to our country and why a connection between the arts and education can make a lasting difference for families all across our country. you know, back in 1965, when i was just two years old, a group of senators, republicans and democrat, came together to create two things. the national endowment for the humanities and the national endowment for the arts. and these two federally funded national programs are absolutely critical educational, economic and cultural drivers that have impacted thousands of communities across the united

states. why is this a subject of any contention or discussion here? well, because unfortunately our president's budget this year proposed to eliminate funding for both of these organizations. both the national endowment of the arts and national endowment of the humanities proposed to be removed, zeroed out, canceled, despite their almost 50-year -- more than 50-year record of successful impact and service across the country. in my little state of delaware, the national endowment of the arts, the national endowment of the humanities fund all sorts of valuable programs with significant impacts. last year i invited the head of the national endowment of the arts to come and visit us in delaware and to pull together the whole range of folks who receive some grants from them. 68 -- $680,000 last year, about 17% of the funding in my state.

it helped support 100 grants to nonprofits in our state. the grand opera house, which has a summer in the park series because of the national endowment for the arts. the university of delaware and its community music school which holds a musical theater camp every summer severing about 80 kids. the christina cultural arts center which brings cutting edge arts programming to a neighborhood that otherwise might not enjoy it. the creative vision factory which provides individuals with behavioral health disorders an opportunity for self-expression, empowerment and recovery through the arts. i could give you many more examples but these are four of the hundreds of the national endowment for the humanities gives grants to programs in our state. i'll mention one, art conservation at winiter, a collection of the american arts has a partnership with museums

in places around the world from haiti to iraq to syria where because of conflict, critical pieces of cultural history have been at risk of being lost. and because of these n.e.h. grants to winiter those partnerships have been strengthened. we've been blessed to have the governor and his wife over the last eight years strong support for the arts in our state and we've got lots of leading individuals in our state, tatiana cope land who supported the delaware city orchestra. they work in partnership, as does every administration, with the delaware division of the arts. a gentleman named paul weegraph is the executive director of the administration of the arts and i am hopeful we here in the senate can sustain bipartisan support for arts and humanities funding and that the young people of delaware, our communities and our families will continue to enjoy the blessings that these

investments and creativity bring. how much are we talking about? it's about $150 million. $149.8 million to be specific. this year, this fiscal year for each of these two endowments. that's a tiny, tiny percentage of the total federal budget. $150 million may sound like a lot. $680,000 in grants to my tiny state of delaware may sound like a lot but across these two endowments $300 million in federal money mass a dramatic impact. it leverages private funding nine to one. in recent studies looking at the impact of the national endowment of the arts, they concluded that they were particularly focused and particularly effective and that where there is a leadership grant given by n.e.a. it leverages nine more dollars for every federal dollar. i think federal funding for the arts and humanities has to remain a priority. i think it is important that we embrace the model that the cab

calloway school championed in delaware across the country where you show educational excellence by working it together with the is expressive and creative arts. it was william butler yates, a famous irish poet, who once said that education, education is not the mere filling up of a pail. it is the lighting of a fire. and if you want to ignite the aspirations, the hopes, the dreams of young people, don't just engage them in trying the senator the senator -- in trigonometry and physics although those can be challenging. light the fire the their spirit with arts. give them the opportunity to paint on the canvas of their lives and give them the gift of artistic training and skills. and there is no limit to where they can go. that's been our experience in delaware. that's been our experience across the country. and it's my hope, mr. president, that we will find a way on a bipartisan basis to continue to sustain investment in the humanities and

the arts. mr. president, kennedy, who in 1960 said there is a connection -- and i'm quoting -- president kennedy said there's a connection hard to explain logically but easy to feel between achievement and public life and progress in the arts. and citing three important periods in history, he said the age of pericles was also the age of thideus. the age of elizabeth also the age of shakespeare. and he concluded the new frontier for which i campaigned in public life can and should also be a new frontier for american art. it's important that we remember here that the modest amounts of federal money we invest in the arts bear enormous positive, multiplied benefits to the people of our country and to our place in the world. i am grateful for all who work

in arts education and i'm grateful for the opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis to sustain our federal investment in the arts and humanities. mr. president, thank you. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: are we under a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is indeed in a quorum call. mrs. fischer: i would ask that it be vitiated, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to continue my tribute to nebraska's heroes, the current generation of men and women who lost their lives defending our freedom in iraq and afghanistan. each of these nebraskans has a special story to tell. today i will recall the life and service of chief warrant officer christopher allgaier, a native

of omaha, nebraska. growing up chris lived a pretty typical life for a nebraska boy. during high school he played video games and he went to movies with his friends. with his family, he was a frequent visitor to big fred's pizza in omaha, the regular cheese pizza was his go-to. on friday nights he was known to go watch fellow classmates at high school football games. and on saturdays during the fall, he did what a lot of nebraskans do. he would attend or watch a husker football game. along with his sister sharon and brother rob, chris grew up in a catholic household. his family attended st. robert bellamini catholic church in omaha. at creighton high school he was a member of the national honor society, national spanish honor society and the school science club. he was very dedicated to

academics and he graduated with the highest academic honors in 1991. during chris' senior year at creighton prep, he became very interested in fixed wing aircraft and flying. after high school graduation, chris continued his studies at another jesuit institution, st. louis university where he continued his interest in aircraft by studying aeronational call administration. shortly after receiving his bachelor's degree, christen listed in the united states army. this surprised his family and his friends. his father attributes the decision to chris' sense of duty and his interest in aeronautics. chris graduated from basic combat training at fort jackson before attending his advanced individual training in aviation

mechanics. the idea of chris working in aviation mechanics always struck his father bob as somewhat funny. growing up, chris didn't like getting his hands dirty or helping him change the oil in the family vehicles. due to his strong academic record and interest in aeronautics, chris was persuaded to apply for warrant officer candidate school. chris liked the idea of becoming a warrant officer so he could specialize and become an expert in aviation. he graduated at the top of his class for warrant officer candidate school and he became a helicopter pilot. while performing his duties in the army, chris also took classes from embree aeronautical university. he graduated with a master's degree in aeronational cal

science -- aeronautical science in 2001. he was deployed to south korea for over a year before going to afghanistan in 2003 and iraq in 2005. while deployments are usually tough for any family, 2005 was especially difficult for the allgaiers because chris' mother sally passed away. in 2006, chris was assigned to the third general support aviation battalion 82nd brigade combat team out of fort bragg, north carolina. the unit deployed to afghanistan in 2007. he flew ch-47 chinook helicopters in transport missions. during this time chris flew a lot of night operations.

his father said that chris would call him every couple of weeks between missions just to catch up. those were phone calls that bob always looked forward to receiving. the helmand province was the center of fighting in afghanistan in 2007. a british newspaper called it the deadliest area in afghanistan. on the night of may 30, 2007, chris flew another night operation, transporting approximately 30 service members from the 82nd airborne division in the upper singh valley. shortly after dropping the soldiers off for their important mission, insurgents shot down his chinook. the crash killed crash and four other service members. chief warrant officers allgaier's memorial service was

held on june 6 at a catholic church in omaha. hundreds of people including over 100 patriot riders turned out to pay their final respects. chris was laid to rest on june 18, 2007 in arlington national cemetery. fellow chief warrant officer wetsel said that losing chris will leave a void that can't be filled by anybody else. there will be other pilots in the future, but none will equal chris allgaier. chris is survived by his wife jenny and three daughters, natalie, gina, and joanna. chris was honored by the unveiling of christopher allgaier street in the neighborhood where he grew up. his brother described how chris

was his hero. he said that chris didn't see himself that way. he saw himself as an american doing his duty. they are not doing it for an ulterior motive. they do it because they believe in it and it is the right thing to do. chris allgaier was awarded the bronze star and the purple heart posthumously. i join his family and americans across the country in saluting his willingness and his family's sacrifice to keep us free. i'm honored to tell his story. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i would suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cotton: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: a month ago we lost another medal of honor recipient captain hutner. not long after we lost another, colonel wesley altots.

two different men who led two different lives. each equally deserving of praise and honor. but i can't but wonder if there's a reason their deaths came so suddenly and close together. it's almost as if our lord took them in one fell swoop. what captain hunter of the u.s. navy did to earn his medal was remarkable for the simple fact he could have been court-martialed for doing it. it was december 1950 in korea just days before the army crossed the yellow river and threw back the forces. he was then a naval aviator flying one of six course airs when he saw his squadron mate get hit by enemy fire.

what lieutenant hunter should have done was stick to the plan, what he did instead was an act of bravery. he crashed his plane not far from insign brown. when p helped arrived, they couldn't hack through the plane's metal and no one could get close enough to amputate his leg. they had to leave his behind. his last words were, tell daisy i love her. it might be appropriate to know here ensign brown was black and lieutenant hunter was white. i say that as an afterthought because to the two of them it was a postscript, a mere detail. they were comrades in arms wearing the red, white, and blue, not seeing the color of

each other's skin. the only color that mattered to them and that they had in common was the navy blue of their unit fomplet two years after -- uniform. two years -- went on to have a successful career of giving us a moral example. from that day we should all be thankful. colonel foxx was a legend in the marine corps. he served for 34 years and leaving when forced to due to mandatory retirement at the age of 62. he held ever rank except for sergeant major. he said before the marines, i didn't own a stitch of clothes -- a stitch of clothes. if i was working in the heyfield, i wore my marine

utilities. if i went to the movies, i wore my marine dress. it was that deeply felt love for his fellow marines that drove him in his service. he fought in korea. he was wounded and after he recovered he was so eager to get back to the fight he wrote to the commandant asking to be deployed again. what earned him a place in history was in the jungles of jeet a number. it was -- of vietnam. he was fighting in the last major marine offensive of the war, operation dewey canyon. his office was alpha company, they came under heavy fire from a larger force that the fearless

lieutenant foxx led a charge against the enemy. he was wounded but refused medical attention, instead concentrating on leading the attack and coordinating air support and supervising the evacuation of the dead and injured. he too earned the medal of honor. he was known for his inspiring initiative and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of danger inspired his marines and they destroyed a large bunker complex. he helped to uphold the highest traditions of u.s. naval service. as i said two different men, two different stories, but the same courage and service to the same great country. they showed the same selflessness, one risk his -- risking his life for his friend,

the other risking his life his marines. it is fitting to celebrate their lives together because they both showed the selflessness of courage. they didn't fight because they hated our enemies but because they loved our country and they loved their comrades in arms. it's a good lesson, i'd say, for this time of year. i want to honor the memory of captain thomas j.hud nerch r and colonel wesley l. foxx. they were true american patriots and may they rest in peace. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following remarks be reported in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: last year i stood on the floor and said a few words about a fellow arkansan. we had met to schis work with the arkansas chapter of the

a.l.s. association. he had been diagnosed with a.l.s. in 2014 and never wanted to let the grass grow under his feet until he was a tireless advocate for a.l.s. research since then. i'm sorry to report that tom died last month on november 22. he lived three years after his diagnosis, which is about average for people these days with a.l.s. with his death, the national a.l.s. association lost one of its great champions. tom was always bursting with energy. he was born in 1946 in be aing don, virginia -- abinkdon, virginia. after a brief stint of retirement he worked for and nonprofit of st. mary's in arkansas. a.l.s. was headquartered in that building so he can give both

organizations his own. when we met he helped me to help fix a problem that a.l.s. victims had when applying for disability insurance. there is a five-month waiting period. although that may be prudent in many cases, for many with a.l.s., it consumes a lot of their remaining time in this world. so i joined with senator whitehouse to sponsor the a.l.s. disability insurance access act. tom's death should be a reminder of the urgent need to defeat this disease to finally pass this bill into law. it's the least we can do to commemorate a man who gave to this effort so much because even in death tom's commitment wasn't complete. by his request his spine was donated to continue to search for a cure for a.l.s. it is not hard to understand why. he himself used to stress the

positive in every situation. his motto was blue skies always, and he certainly did all he could to bring blue skies into his life and the lives of those around him. so now that he has joined our heavenly father in the blue skies, i want to recognize him and his family that he leaves behind. his wife of 44 years, sally armstrong, their two children, and their two grandchildren. our state is better off for tom having lived in it and all of us are better off for having known him. may he rest in peace. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i come to the floor today to share my deep concern over the current state of america's global diplomacy. a multitude of decisions made by this administration in the last year have caused me to pause and repeatedly ask why, but in no area have i been more perplexed than in the actions that have taken place at the state department. ever since this secretary of state took the helm, there has been a slow, unexplained erosion of the department, and along with it the values that it promotes and the vital role it plays around the world. by now, many are familiar with the list of concerns that seasoned diplomats, national security officials and members of this body have been raising with increasing alarm over the last weeks and months. more than 30 key ambassadorships

remain without named nominees. dozens of important senior level posts remain vacant. career officials are being cut out of important policy decisions or overruled by leadership, including sometimes even on legal issues. the foreign service is being hollowed out with a significantly lower number in the incoming classes, putting at risk the next generation of leaders. opportunities for mid-level employees are extremely limited, with a freeze on those transfers and promotions, and our most experienced officials, the department's equivalents to two, three, and four-star generals, have been departing or effectively forced out and not replaced at the same rate. i honor the experienced career officials stepping in to fill vacancies and carrying out the department's important work, but there are limits to what officials can accomplish in acting role. it is now december,

mr. president. we cannot afford to have a department that remains hamstrung because of rudderless stagnation at the top. let's be clear. this is not just about numbers or unfilled positions. the numbers do not tell the full story. while the employees at the state department and usaid can and have been carrying on, it's not an easy task when employees feel that the message they receive from the top is that they and their work are not valued. this understandably has an impact on morale, which is now devastatingly low. in embarking on what has been dubbed a redesign of the department, the leadership at state has regrettably left the men and women who so capably and loyally served it behind. i have heard from many employees who are not just concerned about their own future or careers but who are concerned about the direction of the department itself and the viability of its legacy. mr. president, the state department's leadership has had more than enough time to assess what can be improved. it is beyond time to show that the men and women serving at the

state and usaid that they are not only a valued but a vital part of our national diplomacy and national security strategy. for weeks, secretary tiller son has promised to announce significant progress on its plan to move the department forward. tuesday, in a speech to the state department and usaid personnel, the mental was once again underwhelming. secretary tillerson continues to tinger around -- tinker around the edges while the department's core functions are deliberately hollowed out. while i'm encouraged to see him announce a small and important steps in the right direction, i am worried that he still has not gotten the overall message. despite calls from myself and others on the foreign relations committee, and pleas from current and former employees, diplomats and military leaders, secretary tillerson has yet to lift the hiring freeze that remains in place. he announced it -- he announced it would be lifted for the family members of employees, a welcome step but not enough. freezing or limiting

opportunities for family members to join their spouses who are serving abroad never made sense in the first place. i am therefore still left wondering why the hiring freeze has been in place at all when nearly every other federal agency lifted it earlier this year, and i can understand how it has benefited our foreign civil service. so again, i'm left asking why. why should we tolerate a massive exodus of diplomatic and development expertise at the state department and usaid? our president said recently that we do not need to worry about the fact that many of the senior level positions at the state department remain unfilled, because when it comes to foreign policy, his opinion is the only one that matters. why on earth would he say that? for the thousands of foreign service officers around the world working to advance the ideals of the united states, this was a horrible and offensive message. mr. president, i'm concerned that this administration does not understand how critical a

role state and usaid play in our national security policy. they are every bit as vital and critical an element of our national security as the department of defense, the intelligence community, our law enforcement, or the countless others in the federal government who work tirelessly every day to protect our security, extend our prosperity, and promote our values. we put our country in danger, and when we do not give adequate voice and resources to all of our country's national security tools. secretary -- former secretary madeleine albright said in a turbulent and perilous world, the men and women of our foreign service are on the front lines every day on every continent for us. diplomacy is an investment we make so that we don't have to go to war. nickel and diming it is not in our national security interests. i have made no secret about my deep concerns regarding the current management practices of the department's leadership, the

reorganization and budget debacles, the current senior level vacancies and the deep costs that our foreign service and development professionals are paying. the united states foreign policy leadership around the world is also paying the price, and we will continue to pay the price if things aren't turned around quickly. even with the few changes secretary tillerson announced this week, i believe there are still multiple issues that need to be addressed. i raise many of -- raised many of them recently in a letter to the secretary with my fellow democratic colleagues on the senate foreign relations committee. if the secretary truly wishes for the state department and our country to succeed, he will seriously consider the following concerns. first, improve transparency. all senators on the senate foreign relations committee should receive regular briefings that thoroughly address the proposed reorganization plans and decisions. second, we need to know the details and timeline for reorganization. the department must provide a clear timeline, something it has

failed to do today, and to provide details about what it is planning. while there are some parts of the reorganization that we find to be positive, such as improving information technology, i remain concerned that the reorganization may be marginalizing or eliminating critical bureaus and offices that help inform u.s. foreign policy. i understand that many of these ideals may not come to fruition, but it is essential for us to receive details in a timely way so that the state senate foreign relations committee can carry out its critical oversight function. again, we're now in the 11th month of this administration, and we don't yet know when they are going to be submitting their plans for reorganization, and we have not been kept adequately informed. third, i would mention filling senior vacancies. the department must prioritize key senior vacancies and work with the white house to swiftly move forward qualified nominees.

the significant vacancies for senior level management of policy positions in such critical bureaus as counterterrorism and political and military affairs are deeply troubling. approximately 30 countries still do not have named ambassador nominees, including south korea, jordan, egypt, and saudi arabia. despite claims that the senate's low pace is to blame for the lack of confirmed nominees, the fact is that the foreign relations committee has promptly processed the vast majority of nominees and only a handful are currently awaiting a senate vote. we cannot confirm nominees who have not been nominated. and finally, let me talk about the need to uphold the mission of the department. the department's mission statement must continue to reflect the values we hold as americans. proposed changes send a troubling signal about the administration's vision for the department and its role in foreign policy. the promotion of democracy and respect for human rights around the world must remain a central

part of the state department's overall mission. i agree that improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the department is critical to our national security, given the countless challenges we face as a nation. reforms to information technology, human resources and procurement systems are long overdue and i support the efforts of the department to streamline special envoys and special representative positions. i hope that moving forward the department will consider congress as a partner in these endeavors as well as broader efforts to strengthen americans diplomatic -- america's diplomatic capabilities. if the department continues down its path, i can assure you that i and my colleagues will use every legislative option we have to address these concerns. my goal is to ensure that the employses -- employees in the state department have what they require. i will do everything in my power

to dwairn tee -- guarantee that this goal? accomplished. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: thank you, mr. president. i ask that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to join my colleagues to oppose the federal communication commission's planned vote tomorrow to dismantle net neutrality rules. as this proposal has been considered, i've been troubled by the impact that this decision will have on consumers and small businesses as well as by the process itself which has been seriously flawed with regard to gaining public input on this critical issue. mr. president, access to a free and open internet is at the forefront of the lives of nearly every american. consumers, nurps, innovative -- entrepreneurs,

innovative small businesses and in turn our nation's economy have all benefited from equal access to content on the internet, no matter the internet service provider. and an open internet has been essential to civic engagement, social and economic mobility, and the fight to make progress for our underrepresented populations. just like what we saw with the national women's march at the beginning of this year, which was largely organized through online activism. an open internet is critical to our economy and our democracy. and net neutrality has guaranteed this equal access. but tomorrow's vote by the f.c.c. would change all of that. under the plan from f.c.c. chairman ajit pai, the control of the internet experience will be taken from the consumer in

keane or the small business owner in nashua and handed over to their internet priors. undoing net neutrality will give broadband providers the power to discriminate against certain web pages, applications, and streaming and video services by slowing them down, blocking them, or favoring certain services while charging you more to access others. this is particularly disturbing at a time when many consumers only have, at most, one or two options for broadband providers, leaving those who don't like the steps their provider is taking without a choice to change. additionally, mr. president, dismantling net neutrality rules will hurt small businesses and will stifle innovation. under these rules, internet service providers would be allowed to force businesses to pay to play online. while larger, well established companies would likely be able to compete, start-ups and

entrepreneurs across the nation might not be able to afford such fees, causing instability and limiting the reach of their new businesses. in new hampshire, innovative small businesses are the backbone of our economy, creating good jobs and stimulating economic growth. but undoing net neutrality could limit the ability of that next great business to get off the ground. a manchester small business owner recently wrote to my staff to say, this is the quote, i believe that net neutrality should stay in effect as it allows h every business to be on the same footing. and that under this proposal, again a quote, if you are leveraging with the internet to boost your business, it will affect it dramatically. that business owner is not alone. just today several members of the rural and agricultural

business community in new england, including stonyfield from londonderry, new hampshire, wrote to chairman pai to say repealing net neutrality will further restrict access to the internet for rural businesses at a point in time where we need to expand and speed this access instead. and hundreds of people have called in to my office to voice their support for net neutrality. mr. president, people across the nation recognize that the plan proposed by the republican-led f.c.c. will truly impact their way of life. and in response to chairman pai's proposals, millions have also written to the f.c.c. to state their position on this issue, but it seems that this process has been corrupted with internet bots, placing hundreds of thousands of comments in

favor of repealing net neutrality. roughly 400,000 of those comments may have, it seems, originated from russian e-mail addresses. additionally, 50,000 consumer service complaints have been excluded from public record, according to a freedom of information act request filed by the national hispanic media coalition. mr. president, on any f.c.c. decision, public input is vital. and on this decision that impacts every single american, it is unacceptable that the public's opinion may have been distorted by fraudulent comments and additional anomalies. last week i, along with 27 of my colleagues, wrote to chairman pai, calling for a delay in this vote until we have a clear understanding of what happened during the policy making process. unfortunately, chairman pai has

continued rushing toward this vote and has -- and as has been all too common with the trump administration, the republican-led f.c.c. is favoring the priorities and voices of corporate special interests rather than listening to hardworking americans who want to keep net neutrality. the commission has failed to address the concerns that these comments are artificially generated, has not held one public hearing on net neutrality, and is moving forward at an alarming pace without regard for what eliminating these rules would mean for our economy and our consumers. mr. president, undoing net neutrality will fundamentally change the concept of a free and open internet that so many granite staters and americans have come to know and have benefited from. and approving this plan would be

a reckless decision. i'm going to continue fighting for priorities that put consumers first, that help small businesses innovate and thrive, and that advance an open and free internet. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. hoeven: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i come to the senate floor today to once again talk about the need to pass tax relief for hardworking americans. the house has passed a bill, the senate has passed a bill, and, of course now we're working with the house conference committee to get the best product we can

for the american people. this tax relief is not just about reducing the taxes on hardworking americans and making sure they keep more of their hard-earned dollars after tax, but it is also about economic growth. the tax relief package that is coming together through the conference efforts, working to improve on the house and senate version, is designed to grow our economy, and that's incredibly important because over the last decade what we've seen is stagnant wages and income. so workers are working harder than ever but not seeing that growth in their paycheck. that's why we have to make the tax relief package pro-growth so that at the end of the day that worker has a lower tax burden but they also have a rising wage and more income. it's the combination of those two things that really -- you

know, that's the rising tide that lifts all boats, if you will, that's how we generate the higher standard of living for workers and taxpayers across this great nation. so that's what we're working to do. we're working to do both, tax relief, grow the economy, create more jobs and create them here hat home versus overseas and higher wages and income. these are just some of the statistics from the tax relief package that we put together. these are provided by the nonpartisan tax foundation and also the white house council of economic advisors, but the abjective -- objective is to rise the wages by $4,000 over the ten-year scoring period. the estimate right now is that this tax bill is pro-growth and will generate on average $4,000

in higher wages combined with an average tax cut of about $2,200. that's a family of four with the median income. almost one million new jobs. and that pushes wages higher. when you create more jobs, it's the demand for labor that pushes wages higher. we are talking almost one million new jobs over the ten-year period and a 3.7% larger economy. growing the economy, creating more jobs, and its that demand on the part of business that pushes wages and income higher. if you look at the next chart that i've got here, you will see that the -- that we provide tax relief for all income brackets. so it's really focused on lower income, middle class and making

sure that wage earners are saving more of their hard-earned dollars, but the effort is to cut taxes across all income groups, and that's what we do. it starts by taking the seven brackets that we have and reducing them. so it just kind of -- you know, simple math. the house in their plan reduced the number of brackets to three. we keep the seven different brackets. the reason for that is because the objective is to lower everyone's tax rate, right? and we're better able to do that by keeping the seven tax rates. some say, wait, you want to do simply if i care, and we do -- simplification. the complexity in calculating your tacks is calculating your taxable income, your adjusted

gross income. whether you have three different rates or seven different rates depending on which bracket you fall into, that doesn't really add complexity. we keep the simplification in tact but we make sure that we provide tax relief all of the different tax brackets or tax rates. that's what you see in the second chart. in addition, we keep or expand many of the tax deductions or tax provisions that are important to families. it starts with the standard deduction. we double, in essence, the standard deduction. so for an individual right now it's a little over $6,000 a person. we double that standard deduction to $12,000. for a married couple you're talking over $24,000 that is covered under the standard deduction, no tax. in addition, if y'r