Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 158 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 158 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6819-S6829]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NOMINATION OF JOHN EDGAR BRYSON TO BE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

Mr. REID. Under the previous order, I move to executive session to
call up Calendar No. 410, the nomination of John Bryson, to be Commerce
Secretary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of John Edgar
Bryson, of California, to be Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are 4 hours under the order previously
entered. We are hoping all this time will not have to be used. I ask
unanimous consent that 20 minutes remain, equally divided between the
two leaders or their designees, regardless of any time consumed in
quorum calls throughout the presentations made on this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I wish to congratulate my friend, the chairman of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Senator
from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison. They both worked very hard in a fair
way to move forward on this. It has been good for the Senate. When we
confirm this nomination, it will be good for the country.
I don't think we will use all this time. I hope we can vote on this
matter anywhere between 6:30 and 7:30 tonight, hopefully closer to
6:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of John
Bryson of California, whom President Obama has nominated to be his
Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. Bryson's nomination comes at a very critical time for our country
and for our economy. No one disputes the Secretary of Commerce is an
important part of the President's economic team. That person is now
missing in the Commerce Department. Commerce has to do with jobs. There
is nobody there. That dictates that we have a leader with strong, real-
world experience. This position has been vacant since Ambassador Locke
left for China in late July. It is stunning to think, with what the
country is going through, we don't have a Cabinet Secretary who can
attend to manufacturing and other kinds of jobs and job-related efforts
that he will do. But because of the insistence of the minority--and I
had no objection to this--we were unable to move this nomination until
the trade agreements were finished. The trade agreements had to come
forward and passed, that was done, and then it was OK to proceed to the
Bryson nomination.
The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee confirmed Mr.
Bryson by a voice vote. I recall no objections at all. Mr. Bryson will
be an excellent Secretary of Commerce, and America is entitled to have
a Secretary of Commerce on the job. Mr. Bryson possesses a rare
combination of actual real-life business experience and a very broad
intellect. As an executive, he has proven himself to be a talented
executive and has shown his dedication to public service. He cares
about public service. He has had to wait a long time to get this job,
and he has been in and out of public service.
My colleagues should appreciate that Mr. Bryson's confirmation comes
at an important crossroads for the country and for the Commerce
Department itself. The challenges obviously are very important: high
unemployment, a slow economic recovery. The Secretary of Commerce plays
a major role in promoting jobs and our economy. But to do that, he has
to be in place and on the job. If confirmed, as I believe he deserves
to be, he will have to face these deep challenges and looks forward to
so doing.
But I believe Mr. Bryson's experience provides him with the capacity
to help restore jobs in manufacturing in America as the Secretary of
Commerce. I have long fought for a stronger manufacturing sector in
this country. Anybody from West Virginia would be crazy to do
otherwise. Manufacturing has been hit hard all over the country during
this past decade, losing one-third of its workforce, and the
government's response has been piecemeal.
This needs to change. If the next decade is as bad for manufacturing
jobs as the previous one, we are going to have very little left to work
with of the manufacturing sector if we are trying to save it. This has
grave national security implications and could cripple our ability to
outinnovate and outcompete other countries. That is already happening.
In the Commerce Committee, we held three hearings on this issue this
year; that is manufacturing, and we also included a field hearing,
which happened

[[Page S6820]]

to be in West Virginia--total coincidence--on exporting products made
in America.
Mr. Bryson knows that if confirmed, I intend to work with him to make
manufacturing a high priority in our job-creation agenda.
A word on NOAA and NIST. Mr. Bryson will also bring his leadership to
help NOAA innovate its essential services to help all Americans, from
daily weather forecasts to fisheries management, and from coastal
restoration to supporting marine commerce, and on and on. NOAA's
products and services support economic vitality and affect more than
one-third of America's gross domestic product.
Americans in many States across the Nation have suffered record-
breaking weather disasters in 2011, and much of the gulf continues to
recover from the worst oil spill in our history.
Mr. Bryson's business-minded leadership is valuable now more than
ever to help NOAA continue to improve its important services and keep
pace with scientific innovation.
The Department of Commerce also houses the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, NIST--an extraordinary place. I think we have
had a couple of Nobel laureates out of NIST in the last year. NIST is
critical to U.S. innovation and economic competitiveness through its
measurement science, standards, and technological development. NIST
plays a critical role bringing together industry, government, and
universities to advance everything from manufacturing to cybersecurity
to forensic science standards. Mr. Bryson's own experience in both the
public sector and private sector will serve him well as he and his
department tackle such national challenges.
In closing, Mr. Bryson is eminently qualified to be Secretary of
Commerce and to lead this important Cabinet Department during a time in
which the American people are looking for innovative solutions to
improve our economy and create jobs. And we need all the good people we
can get.
I urge my colleagues to quickly support Mr. Bryson's confirmation so
he can begin his important work toward that end.
Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished friend from the State of
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the chairman
of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from West Virginia.
I strongly support the nomination of John Bryson to serve as
Secretary of Commerce. I think he is an exceptional choice by the
President, and I am absolutely confident, having served with many
Commerce Secretaries through the years, that he is going to be one of
our best. I think he is the right person at this moment in time to be
taking the helm at the Department of Commerce. It is a critical,
defining moment in many ways for our economy. The challenges are well
known by everybody here in the Senate, and the decisions we make or
fail to make on new energy sources, on infrastructure, technology,
research--all of the items the Senator from West Virginia mentioned--
all of those are going to play a critical part in defining the United
States leadership role in the global economy.
The experience of John Bryson in the private sector has won him broad
support in the business community.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from former
Secretaries of Commerce serving both Republican and Democratic
administrations alike be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
October 20, 2011.
Dear Majority Leader Reid, Republican Leader McConnell and
Members of the United States Senate: We are writing as former
Commerce Secretaries--who have served both Republican and
Democratic Administrations--to urge you to confirm John
Bryson as Secretary of Commerce.
At a time when the nation is focused on strengthening the
economic recovery and job creation, American businesses and
workers need a Commerce Secretary working for them.
For almost 18 years, as CEO of Edison International, John
was a widely respected business leader. He successfully led
Edison through crisis; he made tough decisions, and he
created jobs. Importantly, John understands the challenges
facing U.S. companies and what they need to prosper so that
they can create jobs.
John has served on the Board of Directors for a number of
U.S. companies--including Boeing and Disney--and has provided
counsel to many entrepreneurs in their early stage
businesses. This is the type of experience we need in
President Obama's cabinet.
We know what it takes to do this job and its importance to
the nation's economy. In these challenging economic times,
John Bryson has the experience that will help move our
country forward and provide an important perspective in the
President's Cabinet.
We strongly support him and ask you to support his
confirmation.
Sincerely,
Carlos Gutierrez,
Former Commerce Secretary, 2005-2009.
Norman Mineta,
Former Commerce Secretary, 2000-2001.
Barbara Hackman Franklin,
Former Commerce Secretary, 1992-1993.
Donald Evans,
Former Commerce Secretary, 2001-2005.
Mickey Kantor,
Former Commerce Secretary, 1996-1997.
Peter Peterson,
Former Commerce Secretary, 1972-1973.

Mr. KERRY. I would say to the Presiding Officer, this is a letter
written to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell from Carlos Gutierrez,
Norman Mineta, Barbara Franklin, Don Evans, Mickey Kantor, Pete
Peterson, all former Commerce Secretaries, all of whom are strongly
supportive of this nomination.
In addition, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Senator Reid
from the president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

United States Hispanic

Chamber of Commerce,

October 18, 2011.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: On behalf of the United States Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce (USHCC), which advocates on behalf of
nearly 3 million Hispanic-owned businesses through our
network of 200 local chambers throughout the nation, I am
writing to register our wholehearted support for President
Obama's nomination of John Bryson to serve as our next
Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce.
As our next Commerce Secretary, Mr. Bryson will bring a
wealth of experience from the private sector. As a former
CEO, he understands the challenges that American companies,
both large and small, are facing in this economy and he will
be a strong business advocate in the Cabinet. As the
President and CEO of Edison International for 18 years until
he retired in 2008, Mr. Bryson led the company through the
electricity crisis of 2000-2001, a period which marked
California's most turbulent era in the power sector. His
stewardship proved that he is a sound business leader, who
can make tough decisions. Edison International endured the
crisis and remains a strong company today, largely due to his
efforts. During these difficult economic times, we need
people who have demonstrated their ability to lead during
crisis, those who can find viable solutions to our nation's
financial challenges.
As a former CEO and board member for non-profit
organizations, as well as Fortune 100 companies such as
Disney and Boeing, Mr. Bryson is aware of the challenges
facing our businesses and entrepreneurs. With small business
as the backbone of our economy, it is important that the new
Secretary intimately understand the challenges and
opportunities faced by our community. We are confident that
Mr. Bryson's background will enable him to approach this post
with our priorities in mind. For his proven record as a
business and civic leader, the USHCC urges a swift
confirmation of Mr. John Bryson as the next Secretary of
Commerce.
Sincerely,
Javier Palomarez,
President & CEO.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say, very quickly, that John Bryson
brings to this role the special qualities of somebody who has served as
the chairman and CEO of one of the Nation's largest utility companies
for almost 20 years, being the chairman and CEO of Edison
International. He has been a board member for nonprofit organizations
as well as for major corporations in our country: Boeing, Disney, some
of the great success stories of our country.

[[Page S6821]]

He has extensive experience working on international issues through
his work at Edison International and as chair of the Pacific Council on
International Policy. I am convinced that if he is confirmed as
Secretary of Commerce today, he is going to focus on increasing
American exports, and he will be a superb ambassador, helping American
companies that are looking to expand across the globe. This is a person
who has already proven his ability to be able to deal with people in
other countries, with other companies, and I am confident about his
ability to perform this task.
His previous experience has exposed him to the importance of
innovation and technology at a vital time for the information economy.
His Department is now leading the administration in its efforts on
issues ranging from privacy to spectrum reform. I am confident he is
the right person to help make that process work.
I also know his work on competitiveness means he will be at the
forefront of helping to lead our country to, in fact, invest in the
skills of our workers, the infrastructure of the Nation, and retain and
bring the brightest people in the world to this task.
Finally, I want to close saying, in my conversations with whom I hope
to be Secretary Bryson, we raised an issue that is of critical
importance to us in Massachusetts. Because of Federal regulations
limiting fishing in our waters, a lot of our fishermen have been put
out of business or pushed to the brink, and there is a great
frustration that exists between the fishing community in our region and
the Federal Government.
When I met with John Bryson, he exhibited an understanding of the
importance of that issue and a willingness to come to Massachusetts and
help us resolve this current situation. We are, frankly, here waiting
for his confirmation, months after those conversations took place, and
his talents could have been put to use in so much of the challenge we
face in this Nation.
I hope my colleagues will join in an overwhelming vote of support for
this outstanding, capable nominee, who I think is the right person for
this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield time to the senior Senator
from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Senator Rockefeller very much.
Mr. President, I believe John Bryson is well suited for this
important role, particularly at a time when our economy is fragile and
job creation is not occurring fast enough.
He has a lot of experience. Senator Kerry just pointed this out. He
has run a multibillion-dollar company, he has been a strong advocate
for business, he is ready to advance a jobs agenda--and all of that
makes him a perfect fit for Commerce Secretary.
I first got to know John when he served for 18 years as CEO of Edison
International, one of the 200 largest corporations in the United
States, with more than 20,000 employees. Edison International is the
parent company of Southern California Edison, which provides power to
14 million Californians and nearly 300,000 businesses.
As my colleagues may recall, in 2000 and 2001, California was gripped
by an energy crisis that resulted in rolling blackouts that left
millions of Californians in the dark. The period marked the most
turbulent era ever for the California power sector. Price caps,
manipulation, rolling blackouts, deregulation, and Enron became the
focus of our attention.
During that difficult time, John's company was under siege. I watched
closely as he successfully fended off financial disaster, even as other
California utilities were swept into bankruptcy. I met and spoke with
John often during that energy crisis and remember well his intelligence
and pragmatism, as utilities, State officials, and Washington worked
our way through the crisis.
Some say that a crisis serves as the best test of a person's
character. If that is so, John Bryson is a man of exceptional
character. In my observation, he worked hard to hear from the people of
California, his shareholders, and the many businesses that relied on a
stable power grid. After emerging from the crisis, from 2003 to 2007,
John turned Edison around completely. The firm was No. 1 among
investor-owned utility companies for returning value to its
shareholders. I believe he will carry this same thoughtful, sensible
leadership style with him to the Commerce Department.
In addition to his time at Edison, he has served as director,
chairman, or adviser for a wide array of companies, schools, and
nonprofit organizations, including many institutions with deep roots in
my home State of California, such as the Walt Disney Company,
BrightSource Energy, Boeing, and the asset manager KKR; the California
Business Roundtable, the Public Policy Institute of California, and the
University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine; the
Council on Foreign Relations, Stanford University, the California
Institute of Technology, and the California Endowment.
I am also proud to note that John and I share the same alma mater--
Stanford--where John earned his undergraduate degree. Later he attended
Yale Law School before returning to California.
John Bryson's experience paints a picture of a leader who focuses on
the practical and the achievable. I believe, if confirmed, he will
support measures that meet those criteria.
At this time in our economic history, our No. 1 priority as a
government must be to grow the economy and get people back to work. I
know my Senate colleagues agree. In my view, John Bryson's combination
of pragmatism, experience in the boardroom, and understanding of the
public sector will make him an outstanding Commerce Secretary. I expect
he will be a powerful voice inside the administration and a partner
with the business community to grow our economy and open international
markets for American manufacturers.
I make these remarks on behalf of my colleague Senator Boxer as well.
We have a California candidate for Secretary of Commerce. We are the
largest State in the Union. We have 12.1 percent. We need job
generation. So I trust that John Bryson is going to provide this, and
provide it as expeditiously as is humanly possible.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I listened to the statements made by my
colleagues, and I have come to a different conclusion. I think this
nominee is actually the wrong person at the worst time. At a time when
the unemployment rate is 9.1 percent, when 14 million Americans are
looking for work, I would think the President would want to respond
appropriately and nominate someone to lead the Commerce Department
whose record was consistent with the mission outlined for the Commerce
Department. That mission is to promote job creation, to promote
economic growth, to promote sustainable development, and improve
standards of living for all Americans. So I would think the President
would want to nominate someone who has a record of robust job creation.
Instead, the President has nominated someone whose political advocacy
is, in my opinion, detached from the financial hardships facing tens of
millions of Americans today.
Most Americans recognize that cap and trade--or, as I call it, cap
and tax--is job killing. It is a job-killing energy tax. Yet this
nominee has repeatedly advocated for cap-and-trade legislation. He even
called the Waxman-Markey legislation a moderate but acceptable bill.
There are colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support that
legislation. I do not. I view it as a tax. The nominee even went so far
as to say the legislation was good precisely because it was a good way
to hide--to hide--a carbon tax. But is that the role of the Secretary
of Commerce: to hide taxes on American businesses, on American
families, to make American businesses less competitive, to make it more
expensive for them to hire new workers?
Mr. BARRASSO. I want to find ways to make it easier and cheaper for
the private sector to create jobs, not for ways to hide taxes and make
it more expensive and harder for the private sector to create jobs.
Finally, I wish to point out what happened during the confirmation
hearing

[[Page S6822]]

before the Senate Commerce Committee. The chairman of the committee,
who is here on the floor, questioned Mr. Bryson about coal. Coal is
important to the chairman's State, and it is very important in my
State, a big part of our economy. He asked for straight, direct
answers, which the chairman did not receive, to the point that he
actually invited the nominee to visit with him privately in his office
to discuss the issue.
So I come here today to say, we need a Commerce Secretary who is
committed to making American businesses more innovative at home and
more competitive abroad--more innovative at home, more competitive
abroad. We need someone who will address the problems of high
unemployment, slow economic growth, and rising consumer costs
aggressively and dispassionately. In my opinion, John Bryson is not
that person. Therefore, I will not support nor will I vote for his
nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today, very shortly, we will vote on
President Obama's nominee to be the Secretary of the Department of
Commerce, Mr. John Bryson. This is the most senior position in the
Department, which is tasked with promoting business, creating jobs, and
spurring economic growth. While this has always been important, it is
very appropriate now, with the unemployment rate at 9.1 percent.
The administration has talked about job creation and the need for
regulatory reform. But respectfully, I have not seen regulatory reform
yet a priority on the President's agenda. You might not find a pricetag
for regulation, but there is no question that businesses know when they
are overregulated. It stifles their ability to create jobs. This year
alone regulations are projected to cost U.S. taxpayers $2.8 trillion,
and new regulations imposed by the administration in 2011 would cost
over $60 billion. So during the confirmation process, when Mr. Bryson
was before our committee, I asked him about his view on overregulation.
He stated that he would be a voice in the administration for
simplifying regulations and eliminating those where the cost of
regulation exceed the benefits.
I believe his business background qualifies him to address that
issue. It would give him the experience to be helpful in bringing back
the regulations that are stifling the growth of business and therefore
the job creation in our country.
I also appreciated that Mr. Bryson said in the confirmation hearing
that the National Labor Relations Board was wrong in trying to keep
Boeing from choosing where it would manufacture its products. On the
corporate tax rate, the United States currently has the second highest
corporate tax rate in the world, behind Japan, which has said it will
lower its rate, ultimately leaving the United States with the dubious
distinction of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate should be a substantial part of
any tax reform, and although that tax policy is beyond the Commerce
Secretary's responsibility, I did ask Mr. Bryson whether he believed
our corporate tax rate was too high and would he be a voice for
lowering it. He said he would. I thought that was a very important
statement for him to make, and important for the Secretary of Commerce
to commit to doing.
We have now passed the free-trade agreements that held up
consideration of his nomination. If confirmed, I expect Mr. Bryson to
take advantage of the agreements and work to assist our businesses with
the efforts to reach out and expand new markets with these new free-
trade agreements. Mr. Bryson made statements before the Commerce
Committee supporting cap-and-trade legislation because he felt that the
electric utility industry--he was the chairman of a major corporation
in that industry--needed regulatory certainty. That was his reason for
coming out for cap and trade. I disagreed with him on that. I agree
with many of my colleagues that that is not the right approach for
America. We should not have cap and trade, as some have called it, cap
and tax. But Mr. Bryson again said that he had no interest in pursuing
that kind of legislation if he is confirmed as Secretary of Commerce.
I would point out that Mr. Bryson has the support of the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the National
Association of Manufacturers. They will be major constituents he will
represent in trying to build business for our country. He is also
supported by six former Secretaries of Commerce, including Secretaries
that served in the administrations of George W. Bush, George H. W.
Bush, and Richard Nixon.
In summary, I believe the President should be given deference in
selecting the members of his Cabinet unless there are serious issues
against the nominee. I have voted against a few of the nominees of some
of the Presidents while I have been in the Senate, but I do it rarely
and very carefully, because I think that elections have consequences. I
believe the President has the right to make his decisions.
I do not believe there are issues that rise to that level in the case
of John Bryson. He does have a business background. He is well regarded
by many colleagues who have called me on his behalf, who have been with
him in the business world. I do not see any issue that would cause me
not to vote for his nomination. I will support his nomination. I will
work alongside him to be a voice for job creation in our country. I
hope he is confirmed. I think he will be confirmed. I would hope he
would then work with other Members of Congress who want to help him be
an effective voice for business and investment in America and create
the jobs that will get this unemployment rate back down and get people
back to work.
I do not have people on my side yet who are going to speak, but there
are two others who wish to speak. I will put us in a quorum call until
they get to the floor and then that will probably allow us to yield
back. I will ask my colleagues, any who are listening, if they wish to
speak on behalf of or against Mr. Bryson to please come to the floor
now so we might be able to know that everyone has been satisfied and we
will be able to take this to a vote. I do think Mr. Bryson has waited
very patiently for a very long time to have this come to a conclusion.
I hope we can do that on as quick a basis as we can, giving everybody
the ability to talk if they so choose.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and the
ranking member of the Commerce Committee for their hard work on this
nomination and their continued great work in the Commerce Committee, on
which I once had the great honor of serving.
I rise today to support the nomination of Mr. John Bryson to be the
37th Secretary of the Department of Commerce. As I mentioned, during my
time in the Senate I had the great honor of serving on the Commerce,
Science and Transportation Committee, one of the most important
committees in the Senate, in my view. It is a wonderful and broadening
experience to be a member of that committee.
I think what we are discussing today is important; that is, whether
Mr. Bryson should be confirmed by Members of my side of the aisle,
because we may not agree with some of his views and some of his
philosophies and statements in the past.
I want to be clear. If I were President of the United States, I would
probably not have nominated Mr. Bryson, even though I am confident he
is a fine man. We just have different views on issues. I think we all
ought to appreciate the fact that elections do have consequences. When
a President is elected, we have an important role to play of advice and
consent. But we also have a role to play in understanding that the
American people have spoken and elected a President of the United
States and placed on him the responsibility of the Presidency. The best
way he can carry out those responsibilities in the most efficient
fashion is to have members of his team around him, people in whom he
has trust and confidence. Mr. Bryson clearly has the trust and
confidence of the President.

[[Page S6823]]

There are times when all of us have opposed a nominee for an office
that requires the advice and consent of the Senate. But those occasions
should be rare. Those occasions should be when, in the judgment of a
Senator, that individual is not fit to serve. That is a big difference
between whether you think that individual should serve or not. In other
words, the President's right, in my view, to have a team around him so
that he can best serve the country is a very important consideration,
without losing or in any way diminishing our responsibility of advice
and consent.
Mr. Bryson has held a number of positions in business and in other
walks of life that are impressive. He may not have made statements or
done things that we particularly agree with, but I don't think you can
question Mr. Bryson's credentials and background to fulfill the job of
Secretary of Commerce. That should be the criteria, in my view.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions as to their role as a Senator
regarding advice and consent. I don't try to tell any other Senator
their role. But I think that the Senate, during most of its existence,
will find the President has been given the benefit of appointing
individuals to positions of authority and responsibility because the
President has earned that right. So it has to be an overriding reason
to vote to reject a nominee.
By the way, I point out that, in this particular case, because of
inaction on the trade agreements, a group of us sent a letter to the
majority leader saying we would withhold support for the current
nominee until the free-trade agreements were passed. The free-trade
agreements were passed.
I urge my colleagues to look at Mr. Bryson's background and not
whether you agree with his statements or philosophy, but whether he is
truly qualified. I believe he is qualified to serve.
I will also mention to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that
some day, sooner or later--and I hope sooner rather than later--we will
have a Republican President who will be nominating individuals to serve
on his team or her team. Then I hope my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle will also observe sort of what has been traditional in the
Senate, which is that you give a President certain latitude to pick the
members of his team who he thinks will help him serve this Nation
through difficult times with the utmost efficiency and loyalty.
I thank both Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison for their work
on this important and, in my view, all too controversial nomination. I
urge my colleagues to vote in support of the nomination of John Bryson
to be the 37th Secretary of the Department of Commerce.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior
Senator from Arizona. I want to say that he was chairman of the
Commerce Committee and did a fine job. I am so appreciative that he put
a perspective on the role of advice and consent in the Senate, because
there are times when all of us have said the issues regarding a certain
nomination are so great that they would not allow us to vote for
confirmation. But that is not the case here. I do think Senator McCain
made the eloquent statement that Mr. Bryson might not be his choice,
but that is not the question before us. He is qualified for this job.
He has the business background we need. We certainly need a Secretary
of Commerce to be able to help our businesses grow and create jobs, and
elections do have consequences.
I thank the Senator from Arizona for taking the time to come and make
that part of the record complete. I am pleased we are having this kind
of discourse. I think the record will be complete, and I believe that
when our colleagues think about the importance of the President having
his nominee for this job, and the qualifications that Mr. Bryson has,
even if you disagree on issues--which I certainly do, Senator McCain
does, and Senator Barrasso does, and we are going to disagree on
issues; that happens every day. But does it rise to the level of voting
against this nomination? That is the question we have to answer. I
thought Senator McCain answered it very well.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to talk on behalf of
Commerce Secretary nominee John Bryson. Mr. Bryson testified before our
Commerce Committee. I was impressed by his background and by his
ability to answer the questions and by his understanding of business. I
think everyone knows we are facing difficult economic times in this
country and we need someone in that job that understands business.
Mr. Bryson has strong and broad support within the business
community, and his nomination has been endorsed by such groups as the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and the National
Association of Manufacturers. Six former Commerce Secretaries, from the
George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Nixon
administrations, have also joined in strongly supporting his
confirmation.
Mr. Bryson, as we know, was reported favorably to the entire Senate
by the Commerce Committee. But let's look at what some of the groups
have said about Mr. Bryson. The Business Roundtable says:

John Bryson is a proven, well-respected executive who will
bring his private sector experience to the Commerce
Department's broad portfolio.

The National Association of Manufacturers says Bryson has ``a strong
business background . . . which gives him the advantage of having
exposure to the difficult issues manufacturers face in today's global
marketplace.''
The President and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers,
Jay Timmons, said:

Mr. Bryson has a strong business background and serves on
the board of many manufacturing companies, which gives him
the advantage of having exposure to the difficult issues
manufacturers face in today's global marketplace.

I believe the way we get out of this downturn is manufacturing, it is
making things in America again, it is inventing stuff, and it is
exporting to the world. These business groups know that Mr. Bryson
understands their issues.
The Chamber of Commerce says Bryson has ``extensive knowledge of the
private sector and years of experience successfully running a major
company.''
From Edison International we hear that Bryson was ``a visionary
leader of Edison International, and we know that he will bring that
same leadership to the Department of Commerce.''
Boeing says this:

John Bryson's global business experience and strong
leadership skills are a great match for the position of
Secretary of Commerce.

The Acting President pro tempore serves on the Commerce Committee, as
I do. I head the Subcommittee on Competitive Innovation and Export
Promotion, and I have seen firsthand the need to make sure the Commerce
Committee is thinking every single day--as the Commerce Department
should--about how we get more jobs in this country, how we make sure we
are working with business as partners, how we make sure we get through
the redtape, and that we put forward a competitive agenda for this
country. That is why I am supporting Mr. Bryson for Commerce Secretary.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of
Mr. John Bryson to be the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of
Commerce plays a key role in overseeing a department that is
responsible for spurring innovation, supporting small business, and
providing our Nation with operational scientific information. In tough
economic times we need strong leadership in this key cabinet position
in order to ensure that our Nation's needs in these areas are met.
To that end, Mr. Bryson brings with him a strong record of business
leadership and a sense of the importance of resource stewardship, a
rare combination that I believe will serve him extremely well.
Unfortunately, there are those who believe that his past association
with certain environmental groups

[[Page S6824]]

or his eminently sensible support for a solution to our reliance on
fossil fuels, should disqualify him from this post. I would suggest
that these naysayers consider that Mr. Bryson has been endorsed by the
Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The support shown by these groups ought to
demonstrate the nominee's commitment to growing American business and
the American economy. I also suggest we should not fear a nominee who
has shown a willingness to explore novel solutions to grappling with
our dependence on foreign oil and the larger issue of climate change.
Both of these issues are likely to be among the most important and,
potentially, the most disrupting problems that we leave to our children
and grandchildren. No one in this Chamber will deny that we must reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels, which are a finite resource whether
found here or abroad, and no one in this Chamber should deny that the
climate is changing. To do so is to deny that which is in front of our
eyes and history does not look kindly on those who ignore the obvious.
We should therefore embrace those such as Mr. Bryson who have shown a
willingness to work with the business community in seeking a solution
to these issues.
In sum, I believe Mr. Bryson can provide the leadership we need at
the Department of Commerce and I ask my colleagues to join me in
supporting and confirming Mr. Bryson's nomination.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today in support of
the nomination of John Bryson to be Secretary of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce includes a diverse collection of agencies
that work on everything from predicting the weather to issuing patents.
But the Department's over-arching mission is to promote job creation
and economic growth. Today, that mission is more important than ever.
With the national unemployment rate hovering around 9 percent, we
should have a Secretary of Commerce in place who can lead the
Department in meeting its important mission.
After considering his nomination in the Senate Commerce Committee, I
believe Mr. Bryson is well qualified to be Secretary of Commerce.
Bryson knows something about job creation from his experience as a
business leader in the energy sector. He also served on the boards of
well-known companies such as Boeing and the Walt Disney Company.
Those experiences will help Bryson meet the challenges of leading the
Department of Commerce.
I know firsthand some of the good work that the Department of
Commerce has done to help businesses in my home State through the
Economic Development Administration, EDA, manufacturing extension
partnership, MEP, and trade adjustment for firms initiatives.
I have visited small businesses that received assistance from these
Department of Commerce agencies and know how vital such support can be
for entrepreneurs who want to grow their business or maybe export for
the first time.
The Department of Commerce already faces enough challenges to meet
its vital mission. Delaying Mr. Bryson's nomination any further would
only add to those challenges at a time when we can ill afford it.
I urge my Senate colleagues to support his nomination.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise in support of John Bryson of
California, President Obama's nominee to be Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. Bryson will bring a wealth of experience in both the private
sector and the public sector to this very important job of Commerce
Secretary. Lord knows, we are in a recession and we are fighting hard
to get out of it. We need a Commerce Secretary, and we need someone who
understands the private sector and the public sector and we have that
in John Bryson.
In the 1970s and 1980s, he served as the chairman of the California
Water Resources Board and as the chairman of the California Public
Utilities Commission. There, he helped California navigate droughts,
oil shortages, and other crises during a critical period in my State's
history.
For more than 20 years, Mr. Bryson has utilized his talents in the
private sector, first as chairman and CEO of Southern California
Edison, and later as chairman and CEO of Edison International.
Mr. Bryson has also served on the boards of many companies, both
large and small, and he will bring to the job of Commerce Secretary a
unique expertise on what it takes for businesses to grow and expand.
Mr. Bryson's top priority is job creation. As Commerce Secretary, he
will be working closely with the President to meet the goal of doubling
our Nation's exports by 2015 and creating hundreds of thousands of new
jobs right here in the United States. He will be working with the
private sector to drive innovation and economic growth, and he will be
working to make the United States a leader in the clean energy economy.
At Edison International, Mr. Bryson helped California become a hub
for clean energy development and clean energy jobs by making
investments in those renewable technologies. He understands new clean
energy technologies will create millions of jobs here at home and that
the Nation that rises to this challenge will lead the world because the
whole world is looking for these kinds of technologies.
I think Mr. Bryson comes to us with varied experiences which will
serve us well and will serve President Obama well. Mr. Bryson's
nomination has been applauded by all sides of the political spectrum,
from environmentalists to business interests.
Tom Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce praised Mr. Bryson's
``extensive knowledge of the private sector and years of experience
successfully running a major company.''
The Business Roundtable called Mr. Bryson ``a proven, well-respected
executive who will bring his private sector experience to the Commerce
Department's broad portfolio that includes technology, trade,
intellectual property and exports, which will be crucial to expanding
our economy and creating jobs.''
The Natural Resources Defense Council, which Mr. Bryson helped found
in the 1970s, called him:

. . . a visionary leader in promoting a clean environment and
a strong economy. He has compiled an exemplary record in
public service and in business that underscores the strong
linkage between economic and environmental progress.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial
from the Los Angeles Times, titled ``Commerce Department nominee
deserves the job.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From latimes.com, Jun. 21, 2011]

Commerce Department Nominee Deserves the Job

John Bryson's nomination to be President Obama's next
secretary of Commerce has been met with the predictable
combination of delusion and obstructionism that characterizes
the modern confirmation process. Some Senate Republicans vow
to hold him hostage to the passage of several long-sought
free-trade agreements; others insist they will reject him
based on his presumed politics, which they wish were more
like theirs. None has advanced an argument worthy of
defeating this nomination, and though sensible people will
withhold a final judgment until after Bryson is questioned,
his credentials are encouraging, as are the endorsements of
those who know him.
Bryson is a familiar figure in Los Angeles. A longtime
chairman and chief executive of Southern California Edison
and Edison International, he is a pillar of the region's
business community, admired by the Chamber of Commerce and
his fellow executives. He also was a founder of the Natural
Resources Defense Council, where his work earned him respect
and appreciation from California's environmental movement.
He's been president of the California Public Utilities
Commission and even served as a director of Boeing,

[[Page S6825]]

dipping his toe into the nation's military-industrial
complex. He is thus the rare nominee to present himself to
Congress with endorsements from the Chamber, military
suppliers and the nation's leading environmental
organizations.
Within a rational political universe, that would entitle
Bryson to confirmation by acclamation. But zealots are
suspicious. His critics question his support for regulation
to address climate change and see his NRDC leadership (more
than three decades ago) as evidence that he's a ``job
killer'' and an ``environmental extremist'' rather than a job
promoter as the Commerce secretary traditionally is. Never
mind that Bryson's record is one of both serious business
development and responsible environmental stewardship.
Then there's the issue of the free-trade agreements. Yes,
Obama has moved too slowly to forward the South Korea,
Colombia and Panama trade pacts that will create jobs and
expand the reach of American business. And yes, Obama's labor
allies are principally to blame for obstructing those pacts.
But those objections are irrelevant to Bryson's nomination
and shouldn't be used as an excuse to hold it up.
Many Republicans undoubtedly would prefer a nominee who
championed drilling as the answer to America's energy needs
or who countenanced their anti-scientific challenge to global
warming. They have their chance: Elect Sarah Palin. In the
meantime, Obama deserves a Cabinet secretary of impeccable
credentials and broad support. Bryson has a chance to prove
that he's all of that at the hearings that begin Tuesday.
Republicans owe him the opportunity.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Mr. Bryson's unique background will serve
him well as he works with President Obama, the Senate, and the House to
create jobs. I applaud our President for choosing such a well-
qualified, experienced individual to be Commerce Secretary, and I want
to thank Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison for working
together so we could get to this vote today.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. First, let me thank my good friend, the Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer, for speaking because I asked her to do it. A
lot of people are surprised on how well we get along.
The committee she chairs is called the Environment and Public Works
Committee and I am the ranking member. When Republicans were in the
majority, I was the chairman. I look forward to being chairman again,
but that is another conversation for another day.
But the reason I wanted to speak is, because we do. A lot of people
are surprised to see this. We get along very well. Right now, we are
doing everything we possibly can to get a highway reauthorization bill.
She prides herself on being a very proud liberal and I pride myself on
being a very proud conservative. Yet we both know that one of our
primary functions here is to do something about infrastructure.
I have often been ranked as the most conservative member of this
body, the Senate. I often have said I may be conservative, but I am a
big spender in two areas: national defense and infrastructure. That is
what we are supposed to be doing.
Right now, we have the most deplorable problem in the condition of
our roads and highways and bridges. My State of Oklahoma goes back and
forth being dead last or next to the last behind Missouri as having the
worst conditions of our bridges.
We had a lady not too long ago in my State of Oklahoma, in Oklahoma
City, the mother of two small children, who was driving under one of
the big interstate bridges and a block of concrete fell off and it
killed her. She was the mother of two small children. We have people
dying every day on the highways because of the condition of the
highways. For that, I applaud Senator Boxer for joining me to put
together this coalition.
I don't want to say anything that would be improper at this time, but
it is my expectation--not just hope but expectation--that we are going
to be able to come up with a highway reauthorization bill, and it is
going to be one that is at least holding the current spending level.
If we are to have to go back to the level of the proceeds of the
highway trust fund, that would be about 34 percent less than what we
are spending today. I defy any one of my fellow Senators from all the
50 States to tell me one State that isn't having just as serious a
problem as my State of Oklahoma is having.
I think that it is important we recognize there are some things the
government is supposed to be doing and some things that bring us all
together. Again, that is what is going to happen.
I can remember back, the last reauthorization bill we had was 2005.
At that time, I was the chairman of the committee. We all worked
together. We came up with a $284.6 billion, 5-year bill. Yet as robust
as that was, that did very little more than just maintain what we have
today--no new bridges, all these new things we need to have.
I think a lot of the people who are my good friends, and primarily
over in the House, who came under the banner of the tea parties and all
that, they recognize, yes, they can be a conservative. But when they
got home, they said: Wait a minute. We want to not be spending on these
big things, but we weren't talking about transportation. So we have to
single out transportation for my friends to recognize there is a place
we need be spending more money, not less money.
So I look forward to that, and I hope we will have an announcement to
make, as one of the most liberal and one of the most conservative
members joining and coming up with a highway reauthorization bill.
There is not unanimity in what it will look like, other than the
spending level should remain where it is today and it should be
something that is going to address these problems.
There will be a lot of sacrifices along the way. I know that when we
mark up a bill there are going to be a lot of things in it that I don't
like and that Senator Boxer doesn't like and we are going to have to
give up some of these things.
I have made it very clear that back in the early days, when I was
actually serving in the other body, we always had surpluses in the
highway trust fund and we were able to take care of these needs. Then,
as typical as politicians are this way, they see a pot of money and
they want in on it. So we had all these groups, and a lot of them were
environmental groups that wanted to have their own agenda attached to
it. We are going to have to get serious and make this a highway bill.
By the way, this would also be certainly the biggest jobs bill we
have had during this administration, since this administration has done
a lousy job of providing jobs.
But having said that--and I said that because I want to draw a
contrast. We are about to consider and vote on the President's nominee,
John Bryson, to be Secretary of Commerce. He is President Obama's
choice, and there is a clear indication he has no indication of backing
down on his job-killing war on affordable energy.
But I have to say this. With John Bryson, this isn't Van Jones we are
talking about. This is a guy who is a nice guy, and we have a lot of
mutual friends. I have been contacted by people who are friends of mine
who are friends of his, and clearly he is a person who is well received
in terms of being a good person. But he is dead wrong on the issues
that will provide jobs for America.
At a time when unemployment is sky high, President Obama chooses the
founder--and I will characterize it differently than my friend from
California did--of one of the most radical, leftwing, extreme
environmentalist groups, the National Resources Defense Council. It is
a leftwing organization which, in the name of global warming, seeks to
cut off access to our natural resources and increase drastically the
price of electricity and gasoline across America.
We know this is true, because we know that if they would merely
develop the resources we have today in the United States of America, we
wouldn't have to be dependent upon the Middle East for one barrel of
oil, and we wouldn't have to worry about our supply of gas and coal,
because as I will explain in just a minute and document, we have the
largest recoverable resources in coal gas and oil of any country in the
world.
Mr. Bryson once called the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill moderate.
This particular cap-and-trade bill was probably the most liberal of all
the cap-and-trade bills that were there.
By the way, I have to say this one thing. I understand I am the last
speaker tonight. What do all the speakers who are in favor of this have
in

[[Page S6826]]

common? They are all supporting cap and trade, with the exception of
Senator Hutchison, and she is retiring. But stop and think about it:
Boxer, Feinstein, Rockefeller, Kerry, McCain, they are all strong
supporters of cap and trade. That is what I am going to talk about
tonight because I know where John Bryson is on cap and trade.

He told some students at the University of California Berkeley last
year that ``cap-and-trade has the advantage politically at sort-of
hiding the fact that you have a major tax.''
To me, the fact that they are supporting something that is a major
tax increase on the American people is bad enough. But when they say
one of the good things about cap and trade is you can hide the fact
that it is a major tax increase--and we know now what this would cost.
Cap and trade is cap and trade. It doesn't make any difference if it
was back during the Kyoto days. It doesn't make any difference if it
was in any of the bills that were passed. Still, the analysis is that
the cost of a cap-and-trade bill would be between $300 billion and $400
billion a year.
Again, this is legislation that would cost the taxpayers $300 billion
to $400 billion a year and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and
hurt families and workers by raising the price of gasoline and
electricity. Yet the nominee for Secretary of Commerce believes that
was a moderate bill, the Waxman-Markey bill.
The Secretary of Commerce should have a record of promoting, not
stifling, economic growth. John Bryson's career shows he has a clear
record of the latter, and it makes no sense to have the Secretary of
Commerce who is against commerce.
I am not the only one who thinks so. Let me just share. An editorial
in the Wall Street Journal states:

President Obama nominated John Bryson to head the Commerce
Department on Tuesday, praising the Californian as a business
leader who understands what it takes to innovate, to create
jobs, and to persevere through tough times. That's one way of
describing someone with a talent of scoring government
subsidies.

We keep hearing--and I think they hit the nail on the head there and
they answered the question. People say: This man has been very
successful for 18 years. He ran one of the major utilities out in
California, and one of the interesting things about it is this utility
out there is not one that is using coal; it is using renewables.
Obviously, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out: If they have the
very heavy expenses and they raise the price of energy, it doesn't hurt
the utilities. They pass it on. They pass it on to the consumers who
ultimately have to pay for it.
Quoting the Washington Examiner:

But there is another side of Bryson, one that fits squarely
in the tradition of radical Obama appointees like green jobs
czar Van Jones, a self-proclaimed Marxist; Medicare head
Donald Berwick, who swoons over Britain's socialized National
Health Service; and National Labor Relations Board member
Craig Becker, the former labor lawyer who never met a union
power grab he couldn't back.

Here is Investors Business Daily:

The nominee for commerce secretary founded an anti-energy
group and believes in redistribution of wealth to help poorer
nations. At this rate, we will be one of them. If personnel
is policy, there can be no better choice to help implement
President Obama's anti-growth energy policy and
redistribution of wealth plans than his choice to be the next
Secretary of Commerce, John Bryson.

Again, that is the Investors Business Daily.
The ACU came out and said: ``Putting John Bryson in charge of the
Commerce Department is the dictionary definition of putting the fox in
charge of the hen house.''
That is exactly what it is, and that is one reason I would prefer we
not have this vote tonight. I would like to have all of us go back for
this 1-week recess and let the people know this is about to be voted
on, and I think that is one reason they are going to be doing it
tonight.
By the way, I am not critical of the leadership, certainly not the
Democratic or Republican leadership. In fact, I went to them and said:
As long as you give me a 60-vote threshold, I would waive going through
all the loops of filibustering and having cloture votes and all that.
So I appreciate that. But my intent was to wait, and I still would ask
formally if they would change this UC under which we are operating and
allow this vote to take place when we come back from this 1-week
recess.
The choice of Bryson is also part of President Obama's green energy
jobs push. In fact, the President said he specifically nominated--
listen to this--he specifically nominated Bryson because he is a
``fierce proponent of alternative energy.'' But with more than 9
percent unemployment and the complete collapse of the solar company
Solyndra, the President's green agenda is clearly not creating jobs. In
the end, Solyndra is more than just a bankrupt company, it is a
metaphor for the failure of Obama's war on fossil fuel jobs.
I have already called for hearings in the Senate on Solyndra and I
hope it will not be long before they occur.
President Obama has received the message loudly and clearly that his
global warming green agenda no longer sells, but that doesn't mean he
has given up trying to implement it. Bryson is just one figure in
Obama's green team. He follows in the footsteps of Carol Browner and
Anthony Van Jones, who also supported increasing taxes on America's
energy, as well as Energy Secretary Steven Chu. You remember Stephen
Chu, the President's Energy Secretary, who said, ``[s]omehow we have to
figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of gasoline
in Europe.'' That is about $8 a gallon.
It is the intention of this administration to raise gas prices, to
either force them into some other type of energy or to stop people from
having the freedom of driving as we have always had in this country.
That was Energy Secretary Steven Chu who said we have to bring our
price of gasoline at the pumps up to that of Europe.
Then we have also Alan Krueger. His nomination by President Obama to
be the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers is yet another
example. During his time at the Department of Treasury under President
Obama, Mr. Krueger made clear his opposition to the development of
traditional domestic energy. He even went so far as to say ``the
administration believes it is no longer sufficient to address our
Nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels. . . .''
I am still quoting Alan Kreuger. This is when he was in the Treasury
Department. He is the nominee now for the Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers, the advisory council. He even went so far as to say:

The administration's goal is to have resources invested in
ways which yield the highest social return.

That is the current nominee to be Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers for the President. He doesn't need that advice, he is already
doing it.
The Congressional Research Service reports America has the largest
recoverable resources of oil, gas, and coal in the world. The Obama
administration's failure to appreciate this fact is one of the many
reasons why they are not making progress in creating jobs and improving
our economy.
This is a key here. When this discovery was made, the Congressional
Research Service--nobody has denied this. That was less than a year ago
when they said America has the largest recoverable resources of oil,
gas, and coal in the world. That means we could be totally self-
sufficient. All we have to do is develop our own resources.
I defy anyone on this floor to tell me there is any other country
that does not develop its own resources. We are the only one. So we
have 83 percent of our non-shore public lands off limits. We have these
huge reserves out there but we cannot go after them.
Then there is Rebecca Wodder, who President Obama has chosen to be
the Assistant Secretary for the Fish and Wildlife Department. That
would be for the Department of Interior. As CEO of American Rivers,
which works actively to shut down energy production in the United
States, she--Rebecca Wodder--is a strong advocate for the Federal
regulation of hydraulic fracturing, a process which is efficiently and
effectively regulated by States.
This is interesting. It was not long ago that President Obama was
lauding the virtues of natural gas, and at the end of his speech he
said we have to do something about hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic
fracturing started in my State of Oklahoma in 1948. I can't quantify
the hundreds of thousands of wells that have been hydraulically

[[Page S6827]]

fractured, but it has been in the hundreds of thousands--maybe 1.5
million. I have heard that figure. With the exception of one well back
in 1986, where somebody actually went into an aquifer, there has not
been one documented case in over a million hydraulic fractured wells
where it has contaminated groundwater. Yet they are using that, knowing
full well if you kill hydraulic fracturing you kill all the oil and gas
in tight formations because you cannot get it without that.
The selection of Ms. Wodder is a clear departure from her
predecessor, Tom Strickland, who in testimony before the EPW Committee,
our committee, said we should actively and aggressively develop our
energy resources. Unfortunately, Ms. Wodder's support for regulation
and advancement suggested she would do the opposite, which exposes the
reality of President Obama's agenda of increasing energy prices and
destroying jobs.
These nominations--of course we are talking tonight about another
nomination of a person who is a good guy and all that, but John Bryson,
to be in a position to follow all the rest of these who are doing
everything they can to kill fossil fuels, and when you kill fossil
fuels, we know, and the President admitted, it would cause the price of
electricity in America to skyrocket.
These nominations are not surprising when you remember that President
Obama said himself that he wants electricity rates to skyrocket. As he
told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008, ``If somebody wants to build
a coal-fired plant they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them. . .
.''
That is what the Obama EPA regulations intend to do.
The EPA is moving forward with an unprecedented number of rules for
coal-fired plants and industrial boilers that have now become known as
the infamous train wreck for the incredible harm they will do to our
economy. They are set to destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and
significantly raise energy prices for families, businesses, and
farmers--basically anyone who drives a car or flips a switch.
The President himself has now publicly acknowledged this. When we
stopped the Agency from tightening the national ambient air quality
standards for ozone, his statement couldn't be more clear: The EPA
rules create regulatory burdens and uncertainty.
Just last week, EPA also pulled back on its plan to tighten
regulation on farm dust, undoubtedly due to bipartisan concern that it
would cause great harm to our farmers.
I have given the speech on the floor, and I am not going to repeat it
tonight, about what all the regulations this President is trying to put
forth will cost, in terms of his maximum achievable control technology.
He has the refinery MACT, he has the boiler MACT, he has the farm dust
MACT. These are the things he is trying to do where the technology is
not even there.

I found out something the other day in Broken Arrow, OK. I can't
recall the name of the company now. They make platforms for hydraulic
fracturing. I don't know if the Senator from California has ever seen
one of these platforms. I have seen a lot of them. They make a lot of
them in Oklahoma. This young man who is the president of this company
showed me these platforms. These platforms are about--you could put
maybe four of them in this Chamber, that is how big they are.
On these platforms, to do hydraulic fracturing, they have a great big
diesel engine. This diesel engine is necessary to do hydraulic
fracturing of oil wells. They came out with a regulation the other day
I didn't even know about. They said, after a certain date--exactly
where it was, in the next couple of months--that you would not be able
to use the diesel engine on your platform that does hydraulic
fracturing unless it is a tier 4 diesel engine.
Here is the problem. They don't make them. They are on the drawing
board. They are making them but they are not on market yet. So they are
shutting down the people who are building the platforms to do hydraulic
fracturing through regulations.
Every day we run into new regulations. I can remember on the farm
dust regulation, I had a news conference in the State of Oklahoma. In
Oklahoma we went back--I had people coming out from Washington, DC, who
had never been west of the Mississippi. We went down southwest in the
town of Altus, OK. I said in my news conference, when the cameras were
rolling: This President is trying to do something to regulate farm
dust. Let me explain something to you. If you look down here, that
brown stuff down there, that is called dirt. If you look at that round
green thing down there, that is cotton. Put your finger in the air,
that is called wind. Are there any questions?
What I am saying is they all realized there is no technology to
regulate farm dust. Yet they are trying to do it. Right now the major
farm organizations such as American Farm Bureau, they are the ones who
are saying that is the No. 1 concern right now, what they are trying to
do to shut down farms in America. The EPA continues to push regulations
to harm the economy, the Cross-Air State Pollution Rule, the so-called
utility MACT--rules that are poised to destroy jobs.
Let's not forget the economic ramifications of global warming.
But before we leave the utility MACT, we have right now utilities
that are notifying coal producers, saying if this goes through we are
not going to be able to honor our contracts to buy coal from you. That
is how serious it is. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of
employees.
Let's go to the big one now, the economic ramifications of global
warming, regulations imposed by Obama which cost American consumers
between $300 and $400 billion a year. The reason I want to mention this
is because there have been attempts since the Kyoto treaty--of course
we didn't ratify the Kyoto treaty for a good reason, and that is it
would cause extreme economic harm to the United States of America. It
would only affect the developed nations such as the United States and
some of the European nations, but not the developing nations. It would
not have any effect of reducing CO2 if you wanted to reduce
CO2.
Ever since the 1990s there have been about seven or eight different
bills to try, here in the United States, to do away with--impose some
kind of cap and trade. But they were not able to do it because the
people in this body will not vote for it. In this body, right now you
could not get maybe 25, maybe 30 votes. It would take 60 votes to pass
it. You could not get more than 30 votes on a cap-and-trade bill.
The President realized this. He realized with all the jobs that would
be lost and the cost of this, the fact it would impose a tax of around
$300 to $400 billion a year on the American people. I remember back in
1993, that was during the Clinton-Gore years, I remember when they came
out with their big tax increase. I will never forget it because I was
serving at that time in the other body. They were raising marginal
rates, raising capital gains taxes, raising all the taxes, retirement--
all of it. The cost of that was some $30 billion a year. I remember
coming down to the floor of the House of Representatives, saying: We
cannot afford $30 billion a year.
This tax would be 10 times that, between $300 billion and $400
billion a year. That is what they are trying to do.
When the President realized that he was not able to pass this
legislatively, he decided through regulations he was going to pass his
own cap and trade.
I have to say this. There are people out there who still believe--not
very many--somehow we are having catastrophic global warming and it is
due to anthropogenic gases or CO2 emissions.
I remember. I am very fond of Lisa Jackson, who is the EPA
Administrator appointed by President Obama, because I asked her this
question. I said: If we were to pass any of these cap-and-trade bills,
would this reduce worldwide CO2 emissions?
She said: No, because it would only affect the United States of
America. This is not where the problem is. If it is a problem, that
problem is in Mexico, in China, in India, in places that do not have
any kind of restrictions. So that is what it is. He is trying to impose
that tax.
I know people get worn out when they hear talk about billions or $1
trillion. I am not as smart as most of these guys around here so I do
it a little differently. I keep track of the number of families in my
State of Oklahoma who file an income tax return. Then I do my math. If
we were to

[[Page S6828]]

pass cap and trade, or if he is able to do it through regulations--
which are sponsored, by the way, by John Bryson, the nominee we are
talking about--if he were to do it, it would increase the taxes by
between $300 and $400 billion a year. Now do your math with the number
of people who file a tax return in the State of Oklahoma. It would be
approximately $3,000 a family. What do you get for it? You get nothing
by their own admission because it would not reduce the worldwide
emissions.

What this President fails to realize is that affordable, reliable
energy is the lifeblood of a healthy economy and the foundation of our
global competitiveness. Instead, he continues to favor the radical
environmental agenda ahead of turning around our economy and putting
Americans back to work.
On the other hand, in my State of Oklahoma, oil and gas development
has led to a tremendous economic boost in the creation of good-paying
jobs. Right now in my State of Oklahoma--there is a 9.2-percent
unemployment rate nationwide. In my State of Oklahoma, it is 5.5
percent--I am sorry, it is about 5.5 percent or 5.2 percent. That is
about half of the national average. It is due by and large to the fact
that we have this growth and people are in the energy business.
So we can continue going down the path of President Obama's job-
killing agenda or we can start to develop our Nation's vast natural
resources, which are the key to the Nation's recovery. That is jobs.
That is cheap gas at the pumps. We certainly have plenty of them.
The CRS report I mentioned shows that America's combined recoverable
natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. In fact,
our recoverable resources are far greater than those of Saudi Arabia,
China, and Canada combined.
We have 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the United States
of America. That is enough to maintain our current levels of production
as the world's third largest producer and replace our imports from the
Persian Gulf for more than 50 years. In other words, on oil alone, if
we just developed what we have here, it would take care of our needs--
what we know is down there--for 50 years.
We could say the same thing for natural gas. At the current
consumption, America's future supply of natural gas is 2,000 trillion
cubic feet, and at today's rate of use, that is enough to run the
United States of America for 90 years. Just imagine that. The only
problem is that our politicians will not let us develop our own
resources.
Finally, the report I referred to, which is a fairly recent report,
also reveals that America is No. 1 in coal reserves, with more than 28
percent of the world's coal. That is a real solution to the energy
security and the key to economic prosperity.
John Bryson, if he were to become Secretary and the vote would take
place, energy development and economic growth in Oklahoma and across
the Nation could be in jeopardy, and that is why I am doing everything
I can to tell the truth to the American people.
It has been said to me by Democrats and Republicans alike that their
phones have been ringing off the hook by people who serve on boards
with John Bryson. And I said from the very beginning that he is a good
person, but he is of the philosophy that he is an outspoken proponent
of cap-and-trade, and that is what we can't afford.
I know there is a lot of pressure put on Members of this body. I
wonder where all of the conservatives are tonight. I appreciate Senator
Barrasso coming here and talking, as I am talking, and telling the
truth about the problem we have. Sometime, someplace, we have to draw
the line. I named all of these appointments the President has made, the
nominations he has made. We have to draw the line, and I think this is
a good place to do it.
I recognize there is going to be a lot of pressure on conservatives
to kind of sit this one out, but I want them to keep in mind that this
is the No. 1 concern of most of the conservative groups right now. I
read the editorials that were out there. Everybody knows. Our eyes are
open. This is not a vote where later on you say: Oh, I wish I had known
that; I would have voted no. This is your chance to do it.
Have I had calls from people on boards? Yes, I have. They have all
said: He is a good friend of ours, and I don't want to weigh in.
One of them was kind of interesting. He called up and went through
this whole thing, and then after he told me how great John Bryson was,
he said: Have you got that down? I called. You have written that down.
Yes, that is right.
Well, just ignore everything I said.
We know the phone calls come in. These are important people. There
are leaders out there, and I love them all. I love John Bryson, but we
are going to have to draw the line.
If you want to have an advocate for the largest tax increase in the
history of America; that is, a tax increase that is called cap and
trade, then this is the nominee for the Secretary of Commerce who is
committed to cap and trade in America.
I wish we were not going to take this vote until the end of the
recess because I would love to have people go home and try to answer
questions from people who are out there in the real world as to why is
it that someone is not standing up for us to develop our own natural
resources, our own energy, and reduce the price of electricity, reduce
the price of gas, and think about us for a change. That is what is
going to happen.
I think right now, by rushing this vote before people have time to
realize it, that very likely it is going to pass. I don't want anyone
to say they were not informed because I am informing you right now.
I thank Senator Barrasso for joining me.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, every one who has asked for speaking
time on my side has spoken, and I yield back the remainder of our time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield back all time on our side, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of John Edgar Bryson, of California, to be Secretary of Commerce?
The clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 26, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 176 Ex.]

YEAS--74

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--26

Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McConnell
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Vitter
Wicker
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
The nomination was confirmed. Under the previous order, the President
shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

[[Page S6829]]

____________________