[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 72 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2584-S2589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, on Monday night we confirmed former
Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue to be President Trump's Secretary of
Agriculture, and I am here for my 164th ``Time to Wake Up'' speech to
urge Secretary Perdue to listen to his agency, to scientific
researchers in farm States across the country, to our major food and
agricultural producers, and to farmers, fishermen, ranchers, and
foresters about the serious and growing effects of climate change.
Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is changing the atmosphere
and the oceans. We see it everywhere. We see it on drought-stricken
farms and in raging wildfires. We see it in fish that are disappearing
from warming, acidifying waters. We see it in our dying pine forests.
We see it in extreme weather events.
Secretary Perdue is taking the helm of an agency with a key role in
mitigating those very effects. The USDA provides farmers, foresters,
commodities markets, and State and local officials with analyses of
trends and emerging issues affecting agriculture, the food supply, the
environment, and rural communities. In its own Climate Change
Adaptation Plan, the Department notes: ``Climate change has the
potential to confound USDA efforts to meet these core obligations and
responsibilities to the Nation.''
During his tenure as Governor, Secretary Perdue issued a State energy
strategy, stating: ``Strong scientific evidence exists that increasing
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are affecting
Earth's climate.''
That is encouraging. Yet, when asked by Senator Leahy about climate
change during the Secretary's confirmation process, he backpedaled and
said: ``It is clear that the climate has been changing,'' but there is
``significant debate within the scientific community'' on whether human
activities play a role in that.
Whoops, that is the classic denier dodge, and it is just not true.
Secretary Perdue said several times during his confirmation process
that he will use the ``best scientific and statistical data available''
to make decisions. The National Climate Assessment uses the ``best
scientific and statistical data'' to conclude this: ``In the long term,
combined stresses associated with climate change are expected to
decrease agricultural productivity.''
In the Midwest, for instance, the National Climate Assessment reports
that temperatures are increasing, and the rate of warming tripled
between 1980 and 2010. Under the assessment's worst-case scenarios,
temperatures across the Midwest are projected to rise 8.5 degrees
Fahrenheit by the year 2100. If you are a farmer, 8.5 degrees changes
everything.
In the western mountains, massive forests stand dead on the
mountainsides as warmer winters allow the killer bark beetle to swarm
into higher latitudes and higher altitudes. Over 82 million acres of
national forests are under stress from fires, these insects, or both.
Ominously, the assessment says that the combined effect of increasing
wildfire, insect outbreaks, and diseases is expected to cause an
``almost complete loss of subalpine forests.''
The cost to taxpayers of fighting fires in those dead and dying
forests is growing dramatically. Firefighting has gone from just 13
percent of the Forest Service's budget in 2004 to over 50 percent in
2015. The Forest Service estimates that by 2025 fighting fires will
take up to two-thirds of its budget.
[[Page S2585]]
Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell testified to the Senate: ``This
increase in the cost of wildland fire suppression is subsuming the
agency's budget and jeopardizing its ability to implement its full
mission.''
One place Secretary Perdue can go to find out a little bit about this
is from our State universities.
The University of Wyoming's Center for Environmental Hydrology and
Geophysics, for example, reports: ``Many of the most pressing issues
facing the Western United States hinge on the fate and transport of
water and its response to diverse disturbances, including climate
change.''
At Kansas State University, professor of agronomy Charles Rice is
using climate modeling to help anticipate climate effects in the Great
Plains and to help the region mitigate and adapt to those effects.
In Wisconsin, Victor Cabrera, an assistant professor in the
University of Wisconsin-Madison Dairy Science Department, says that
higher summer temperatures and increasing drought will interfere with
both livestock fertility and milk production, and dairy cows could give
as much as 10 percent less milk. Secretary Perdue's own Department of
Agriculture predicts that by 2030 climate change will cost the United
States' dairy sector between $79 million and $199 million per year in
lost production.
South Dakota State University professor Mark Cochrane is working with
the Forest Service to better understand how a changing climate is
affecting our forests. Professor Cochrane reported: ``Forest fire
seasons worldwide increased by 18.7 percent due to more rain-free days
and hotter temperatures.''
Secretary Perdue could travel to Iowa and hear from Gene Takle, an
Iowa State University professor of agronomy and geological and
atmospheric sciences, who told a United Nations conference recently
that climate change is already affecting Iowa farmers. ``This isn't
just about the distant future,'' he said. At Iowa State's Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Secretary Perdue could also hear
about what the center calls ``aggravated and unpredictable risk that
will challenge the security of our agricultural and biological
systems.''
I am from the Ocean State. So let's turn to the oceans, where the
National Climate Assessment predicts: ``Fishing costs are predicted to
increase as fisheries transition to new species and as processing
plants and fishing jobs shift poleward.'' In the Pacific Northwest,
ocean acidification caused a 70-percent loss of oyster larvae from 2006
to 2008 at an oyster hatchery in Oregon. Wild oyster stocks in
Washington State have failed as weather patterns have brought more
acidic water to the shore. This is an industry worth about $73 million
annually. So we ought not to laugh this off.
In Alaska, the University of Alaska has an Ocean Acidification
Research Center. That is how seriously they take it. The Ocean
Acidification Research Center warns that ocean acidification ``has the
potential to disrupt (the Alaskan seafood) industry from top to
bottom''--a top-to-bottom disruption of one of Alaska's major
industries, and we cannot get a word on climate change out of the
Republican side of the aisle in this building.
It is, of course, not just scientists. Some of the largest
agriculture and food companies are speaking out as well. For these
companies, climate change is not a partisan issue. It is not even a
political issue. It is a business survival issue. It is their new
reality. In 2015, major food and beverage companies visited Congress to
tell us how climate change is affecting their industry.
``Climate really matters to our business,'' said Kim Nelson, of
General Mills. ``We fundamentally rely on Mother Nature.'' The choices
we make to protect or forsake our climate, she said, will be
``important to the long-term viability of our company and our
industry.''
Paul Bakus, of Nestle, agreed, saying that climate change ``is
impacting our business today.'' His company cans pumpkins under the
Libby's brand. They have seen pumpkin yields crash in the United
States. Mr. Bakus told us: ``We have never seen growing and harvesting
conditions like this in the Midwest.''
Chief sustainability officer for the Mars Corporation, Barry Parkin,
was blunter in his assessment: ``We are on a path to a dangerous
place.''
Greg Page, the former CEO of Cargill, has publicly stated that
climate change must be addressed to prevent future food shortages.
Specifically, he said:
U.S. production of corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton could
decline by 14 percent by mid-century, and by as much as 42
percent by late century. From an agricultural standpoint, we
have to prepare ourselves for a different climate than we
have today.
In advance of the Paris climate conference, the heads of Mars,
General Mills, Nestle USA, Unilever, Kellogg Company, New Belgium
Brewing, Ben & Jerry's, Cliff Bar, Stonyfield Farm, Danone Dairy,
PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Hershey, and Hain Celestial signed a public
letter--this one here--that said:
Climate change is bad for farmers and agriculture. Drought,
flooding, and hotter growing conditions threaten the world's
food supply and contribute to food insecurity.
They continued:
Now is the time to meaningfully address the reality of
climate change. . . . We are ready to meet the climate
challenges that face our businesses.
These big, successful companies don't take climate change lightly,
and neither do our farmers, loggers, ranchers, and fishermen.
In South Carolina, farms that have been in families for generations,
like that of Representative Mark Sanford's, are under threat from
climate change. Congressman Sanford said: ``At our family farm in
Beaufort, I've watched over the last 50 years as sea levels have risen
and affected salt edges of the farm.''
Out West, ranchers are experiencing longer and more severe droughts.
In a 2012 survey of Southern Colorado ranchers, roughly one-quarter of
respondents said they would likely leave the industry if the drought
persisted. Carlyle Currier, who owns a ranch in Molina, CO, said: ``We
just can't grow enough to feed the cattle ourselves.''
In New Hampshire, Jamey French, President of Northland Forest
Products, has seen hardwood tree species begin to migrate, with less
valuable timber trees like oak and hickory beginning to take the place
of sugar maple and yellow birch.
I sure hope Secretary Purdue will come to Rhode Island and meet our
fishermen. Chris Brown is the owner of Brown Family Seafood and the
president of the Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen's Association. He
has fished in the waters of Rhode Island Sound for years: ``We used to
come right here and catch two, three, four thousand pounds [of whiting]
a day, sometimes 10,'' he told the New York Times. But the whiting have
moved north to cooler waters. ``Climate change is going to make it hard
on some of those species that are not particularly fond of warm or
warming waters,'' Chris said.
And he is not alone. I have been told by other fishermen that it is
getting weird out there in Rhode Island's waters, that this is not our
grandfathers' ocean. These changes are serious for this industry.
So I hope Secretary Perdue will hear the message of our farmers,
foresters, ranchers, and fishermen. They are sending this message loud
and clear. Climate change is happening now, and they count on us to
face the challenge.
The problem, of course, is the fossil fuel-funded denial machine that
has so much influence over the Republican Party in Congress today. That
fossil fuel-funded denial machine will do its best to change the
subject, to muddy the waters, to create artificial doubt, and to use
its anonymous dark political money to break up and thwart any signs of
progress, but all the dark money in the world can't change the things
that Iowa farmers, Wyoming ranchers, South Dakota forest managers, and
Rhode Island fishermen see.
If this body--if our Republican friends here--will not listen to Mars
Corporation, to General Mills, to Nestle USA, to Unilever, to Kellogg,
to Coke and Pepsi and Hershey, it is really time to wake up.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S2586]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to address the Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Increasing the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability to
Veterans Act
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this afternoon, the President will be
signing an Executive order to increase accountability within the
Department of Veterans Affairs. For several years, I have been calling
on the VA to hold bad actors within the VA accountable. In my view, in
too many instances, that has not occurred. There are far too many
examples of those who commit wrongdoing while working at the VA, and
even crimes against veterans and other VA employees have occurred
without any consequence.
On his first day in office, I wrote the President urging him to make
accountability within the Department of Veterans Affairs one of his top
priorities. We see too many examples, and unfortunately one of those
examples--one of those egregious examples--is in my home State of
Kansas, where we face a terrible example of a VA employee violating the
trust of veterans. Yet the VA seems to have no real sense of urgency in
holding this person accountable or committing to fix the process by
which he got into the position that he could commit the acts he did.
In 2015, we learned from local newspaper reports--not from the VA--
that a physician's assistant at the Leavenworth VA hospital had been
sexually abusing veterans. Shortly after that news broke, Leavenworth
County prosecutors charged this individual with multiple counts of
sexual assault and abuse against numerous veterans. He is currently
awaiting trial.
The stories continue to come into our office and to the prosecutor
about other victims. Veterans who sought services at the VA--the place
they would expect to be cared for, respected, and the place they
certainly should find safe--found something exactly the opposite.
As the story unfolded, we learned that Mr. Wisner--the person now
charged with crimes--targeted vulnerable veterans suffering from PTSD,
post-traumatic stress syndrome; he prescribed opioids that inhibited
their thinking, and he used his position to deepen their wounds of war
rather than to heal them.
Although Mr. Wisner is now beyond the reach of the VA, he and others
like him who fail our veterans are not beyond the reach of Congress. It
is ridiculous that taxpayers continue to fund pensions of VA senior
executives and personnel convicted of crimes that harmed our Nation's
veterans when they should have been serving and caring for them.
In the last Congress, we led significant efforts to develop,
introduce, and pass legislation. Most of those efforts were with the
Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, and we passed some
legislation unanimously here in the Senate. That legislation increases
the accountability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to make
certain that senior VA executives and certain healthcare employees
convicted of a felony do not receive the same benefits as those who
diligently and honorably serve our Nation's veterans.
Not as an aside but as a separate sentence, let me take this moment
to say thank you to those people within the Department of Veterans
Affairs who conscientiously care for and fulfill their responsibilities
to our Nation's veterans each and every day. How saddening it must be
that they have to work side by side with people who commit crimes--and
other failures for our veterans--and receive no consequence for that
behavior.
We want to protect our veterans. We also want to make sure that those
who work at the Department of Veterans Affairs know that their
profession is honorable and that they are doing the right thing. It is
difficult to reach that conclusion when surrounded by individuals who
have not fulfilled that responsibility.
In light of the situation with Mr. Wisner--and other cases of
wrongdoing so awful that they have been found guilty of a felony--we
will not tolerate crimes against veterans that cause harm to their
personal safety or that involve corrupt, backroom dealings with senior
VA executives.
That legislation passed the U.S. Senate on the final day of our
session last year. It passed unanimously. Unfortunately, that
legislation did not then pass the House of Representatives, despite
what we were told was significant support for it. It just didn't work
in the schedule. So today I am back on the Senate floor. A hotline
request is pending in which we ask--I ask--that legislation unanimously
passed by the U.S. Senate on the final day of the previous session
would pass today. That will then give the House of Representatives the
time and the mechanics to see that this legislation becomes law.
In fact, the very first piece of legislation I introduced in this
session, the 115th, was Increasing the Department of Veterans Affairs
Accountability to Veterans Act of 2017. We today call for its swift
passage. I am hopeful this legislation will provide an ounce of justice
to those victims who have suffered at the hands of this VA employee,
and I call on my colleagues to once again stand with me in passing this
legislation.
In addition to the issues of accountability of wrongdoing employees
of the Department, this legislation also has additional provisions.
Those provisions include holding VA leaders accountable for Department
mismanagement, hiring well-qualified people and addressing employee
performance, preventing employees from conflicts of interest, and
improving manager training.
We have a duty. Of all people in this country, whom should we pay
respect and honor to? Whom should we care for? For whom should we make
certain we live up to the commitments that were made? One would think
that those who served in our military, who protected our freedoms and
liberties are the ones we would put on a high pedestal and make sure
everything possible to protect them is done.
We have a duty to taxpayers, as well, to make sure funds are not
going to employees who are convicted of crimes against those veterans
that they are charged to protect and to serve.
There have been a number of VA scandals, corruption, and illegal
activity in nearly every State. Whether it has been a secret wait-list
in a hospital that delayed critical care, opioid overmedication that
led to death or suicide, or physical abuse and neglect, crimes must
come to an end. There must be accountability for us to be able to say
we are doing everything possible to bring those crimes to an end.
This legislation is an important step in making the VA worthy of the
service of those who have sacrificed for this Nation. Given the
previous unanimous support, I can't imagine--I hope there is no reason
this legislation should not again pass today. I call upon my colleagues
in the U.S. Senate to stand with me and Senator Blumenthal and others
as we work to make certain the VA is a department worthy of the
veterans it serves.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, later this afternoon the Senate will
vote on the President's nomination of Alexander Acosta to serve as the
U.S. Secretary of Labor. Mr. Acosta has excellent credentials and is
well qualified for the position. He understands that a good-paying job
is critical to helping workers realize the American dream for
themselves and for their families.
After immigrating to the United States from Cuba, Mr. Acosta's
parents worked hard to create more opportunities for their son.
Alexander Acosta became the first person in his family to go to
college, and from there he has had quite an impressive career.
He has already been confirmed by the U.S. Senate three different
times: He served as a Republican member of the National Labor Relations
Board, he
[[Page S2587]]
served as Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Justice Department's
Civil Rights Division, and he served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of Florida.
Mr. Acosta's most recent role was serving as dean of Florida
International University's law school. The school's president told the
Miami Herald recently, ``Alex has a destiny in public service. . . .
He's a person of integrity, conscientious, thoughtful, he doesn't
overreach.''
On March 22, Mr. Acosta had a hearing in the Senate Labor Committee
that lasted two and a half hours. Following his hearing, he answered
380 follow-up questions for the record--604 questions if you count the
sub-questions. Then, on March 30, our committee approved Mr. Acosta's
nomination, readying the nomination for consideration by the full
Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of 140 groups, which includes business groups and labor unions,
which support Mr. Acosta's nomination.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
140 groups that support Mr. Acosta's nomination
Aeronautical Repair Station Association; Air Conditioning
Contractors of America; Alaska Chamber; Alliance of Wyoming
Manufacturers; American Apparel & Footwear Association;
American Bakers Association; American Beverage Association;
American Coatings Association; American Coke and Coal
Chemicals Institute; American Concrete Pressure Pipe
Association; American Fiber Manufacturers Association;
American Fire Sprinkler Association; American Foundry
Society; American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers;
American Home Furnishings Alliance; American Hotel & Lodging
Association; American Iron and Steel Institute; American
Moving & Storage Association; American Staffing Association;
American Supply Association; American Trucking Associations;
AmericanHort; Americans for Tax Reform; Argentum.
Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Arizona
Manufacturers Council; Arkansas State Chamber/Associated
Industries of Arkansas; Asian American Hotel Owners
Association; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.;
Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General
Contractors of America; Associated Industries of Missouri;
Auto Care Association; Brick Industry Association; Can
Industry Association; Center for Worker Freedom; Coalition of
Franchisee Associations; Colorado Association of Commerce and
Industry (CACI); Council of Industry of Southeastern New
York; Corry & Associates; Delta Industries, Inc.
Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, International;
The Fertilizer Institute; Franchise Business Services;
Georgia Association of Manufacturers; Global Cold Chain
Alliance; Harsco; Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration
Distributors International (HARDI); Hispanic National Bar
Association; Hispanic Leadership Fund; HR Policy Association;
INDA, The Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry;
Independent Electrical Contractors; Independent Lubricant
Manufacturers Association; Insured Retirement Institute;
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental
and Reinforcing Iron Workers; International Association of
Fire Fighters; International Foodservice Distributors
Association.
International Franchise Association; International
Housewares Association; International Sign Association;
International Sleep Products Association; International
Warehouse Logistics Association; Investment Casting
Institute; ISSA--The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association;
Laborers' International Union of North America; The Latino
Coalition; Leading Builders of America; League of United
Latin American Citizens; The Linen, Uniform and Facility
Services Association (TRSA); Manufacturer & Business
Association; Metal Powder Industries Federation; Metals
Service Center Institute; Michigan Manufacturers Association;
Miles Sand & Gravel; Missouri Association of Manufacturers;
MMC Materials, Inc.; Montana Retail Association.
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA); MSPA
Americas; National Association of Home Builders; National
Association of Manufacturers (NAM); National Association of
Printing Ink Manufacturers (NAPIM); National Association of
Professional Employer Organizations; National Automobile
Dealers Association; National Christmas Tree Association;
National Club Association; National Council of Chain
Restaurants; National Federation of Independent Business.
National Franchisee Association; National Grocers
Association; National Lumber and Building Material Dealers
Association; National Oilseed Processors Association;
National Precast Concrete Association; National Ready Mixed
Concrete Association; National Restaurant Association;
National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors
Association; National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association;
National Wooden Pallet and Container Association; Nebraska
Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Nevada Manufacturers
Association; New Mexico Business Coalition; North American
Building Trades Union; North American Concrete Alliance;
Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association; Plastics Industry
Association; Port Aggregates, Inc.; Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute; Private Care Association.
Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association; Retail Industry
Leaders Association; Rhode Island Manufacturing Association;
San Jose Police Officers' Association; Seafarers
International Union of North America; Sergeants Benevolent
Association, Police Department, City of New York;
Shipbuilders Council of America; Sioux Corporation; Small
Business & Entrepreneurship Council; SNAC International; The
Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates; Society for
Human Resource Management; South Carolina Chamber of
Commerce; Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association;
Specialty Equipment Market Association; Spurlino Materials.
Technology & Manufacturing Association; Texas Assocation of
Business; Texas Association of Manufacturers; Tile Roofing
Institute; Tree Care Industry Association; Truck Renting and
Leasing Association; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners; United Motorcoach Association; U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; The
Vinyl Institute; Water & Sewer Distributors of America; Wine
& Spirits Wholesalers of America; Workforce Fairness
Institute.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the supporters include the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, the National Federation of
Independent Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the
International Franchise Association, the Associated Builders and
Contractors, and the American Beverage Association.
Here are some examples of what these groups had to say about Mr.
Acosta. The International Franchise Association said, ``Franchise
owners around the country are facing a great deal of regulatory
uncertainty as a result of the wreckage created by the previous
administration's out-of-control Department of Labor. Mr. Acosta's
exemplary record handling labor issues as a member of the NLRB has
shown the appropriate balance needed to protect the interests of
employees and employers.''
The National Federation of Independent Business said, ``Alexander
Acosta is an experienced public servant with a distinguished record.
His knowledge of labor issues and his service as U.S. Attorney make him
an especially strong candidate to take on the entrenched bureaucracy,
which has imposed unbelievably severe and costly regulations on small
business in the recent years.''
The National Retail Federation said, ``Mr. Acosta's diverse
experiences in both public service and the private sector position him
well to be an effective and pragmatic leader at the Department of
Labor.''
Why is this nomination so important? In his new book, New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman uses the term ``Great Acceleration'' for all
of the technological, social, environmental, and market changes
simultaneously sweeping across the globe and argues that we are now
``living through one of the greatest inflection points in history'' as
a result. Add Ball State University's finding that automation is
responsible for the loss of 88 percent of our manufacturing jobs. Add
globalization. Add social, cultural, climate changes, and terrorism,
and you get a big mismatch between the change of pace and the ability
of the average American worker to keep up and fit in the accelerating
forces shaping the workplace.
Earlier this year, after a group of senators listened to a group of
scientists talk about the advances in artificial intelligence, one
Senator asked, ``Where are we all going to work?''
Tom Friedman says that probably the most important governance
challenge is a great need ``to develop the learning systems, training
systems, management systems, social safety nets, and government
regulations that would enable citizens to get the most out of these
accelerations and cushion their worst impacts.''
One of the federal government's chief actors in this drama should be
the U.S. Secretary of Labor. In fact, as many have suggested and the
House of Representatives has done, the title of the job for which
Alexander Acosta has been nominated should be changed to the Secretary
of Workforce, not Secretary of Labor.
Labor union membership in the private sector today is down to less
than
[[Page S2588]]
7 percent. The issue for workers today is not whether they belong to a
union. It is whether they have the skills to adapt to the changing
workplace and to find and keep a job. To be accurate, to create and
keep a job. My generation found jobs. This generation is more likely to
have to create their own jobs.
In his inaugural address, President Trump said he heard ``forgotten
men and women'' who are struggling to keep up and fit into today's
changing world: ``[F]or too many of our citizens, a different reality
exists: mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities;
rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of
our nation . . . `' That is what President Trump said in his inaugural
address.
Ten days earlier, in his farewell address, President Obama said he,
too, heard those same voices: ``[T]oo many families, in inner cities
and in rural counties, have been left behind . . . if we don't create
opportunity for all people, the disaffection and division that has
stalled our progress will only sharpen in years to come. . . . `'
That was President Obama.
What can we do about this? The most important thing is to work with
employers and community colleges and technical institutes and find ways
to increase the number of Americans earning post-secondary certificates
and two-year degrees or more.
Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce says
that by 2020--3 years from now--65 percent of the jobs in this country
will require some college or more. And at the rate we are going,
Georgetown predicts the United States will lack 5 million workers with
an adequate post-secondary education by 2020.
Unfortunately, too many of the federal government's actions over the
last few years have made it harder for American workers to keep up, to
adjust to the changing world, and to create, find, or keep a job.
President Obama's Department of Labor issued 130 percent more final
rules than the previous administration's labor department. Overall, the
Obama Administration issued an average of 85 major rules. These are
rules that may have an impact of $100 million or more a year on the
economy. Eighty-five major rules a year. President Bush, on the other
hand, averaged about 62 a year. That is a 37-percent increase under
President Obama.
Take the overtime rule. In my state, its costs would add hundreds of
dollars per student in college tuition and it would force small
businesses across the country to reduce the jobs that provide the
stability that families need. This rule has been delayed by the courts
until at least June 30th of this year.
Take the so-called joint employer policy. This is a policy that
affects franchising and makes it more likely that a parent company will
own and operate its stores instead of allowing franchisees to own and
operate those stores. A Republican majority at the National Labor
Relations Board can start undoing the damage caused by this harmful
decision.
Then, there is the fiduciary rule, which is going to make it too
expensive for the average worker to obtain investment advice about
retirement benefits--again making it harder, not easier, to adjust to
the changing world of work. The Department of Labor under the Trump
administration has delayed this rule for 60 days, until June 9, 2017.
Some parts of the rule are delayed until January 1, 2018.
One rule after another from the Obama administration has stacked a
big wet blanket of costs and time-consuming mandates on job creators,
causing them to create fewer jobs.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's EEO-1 form will require
employers to provide to the government 20 times as much information as
they do today about how they pay workers. Earlier this month, the
Senator from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, and I asked the Office of
Management and Budget to rescind this time-wasting mandate.
There is the ridiculously complex 108-question FAFSA, the federal aid
application form that 20 million families fill out every year as
students go to college. It turns away from college many of the very
students who most need to adjust to this changing world.
The Affordable Care Act defined full-time work as only 30 hours,
forcing employers to cut their workers' hours or reduce hiring
altogether in order to escape the law's mandate and its unaffordable
penalties.
Many of these rules, like the persuader rule, which chills the
ability of employers to retain legal advice during union organizing
activities, seemed designed for the purpose of strengthening the
membership and the power of labor unions.
We are fortunate to have a nominee in Mr. Acosta who can use his good
judgment to reevaluate labor policies that make it much harder to
create jobs and to find jobs.
We know that Mr. Acosta has support from members of both political
parties, and that raises a question for me: Why did the Senate
yesterday have to vote to invoke cloture on Mr. Acosta's nomination?
The vote was bipartisan, with 61 senators voting to end debate so Mr.
Acosta could have had an up or down vote. He could have been approved
by majority vote yesterday. That has been the tradition in the U.S.
Senate for 230 years. There never has been a Cabinet member denied his
or her position by requiring them to get more than 51 votes. There have
been some cloture votes for delay or to take some extra time, but no
one has ever been denied the position by requiring more than 51 votes.
During most of the 20th century, when one party controlled the White
House and the Senate seventy percent of the time, the minority never
filibustered to death a single presidential nominee. The practice in
the Senate since the Senate's beginning has been that the President
nominates and the Senate decides by majority vote whether to approve
the nomination. Why are we having these cloture votes? We are getting
into more and more of a difficult situation with these votes. It is a
bad habit and both sides, Republicans and Democrats, have caused the
problem.
During the Obama administration, over the 8 years, there were 173
cloture votes on nominations, and I voted to invoke cloture 41 of those
times. For 10 of those nominees, I voted to end debate so that their
nomination could have an up or down vote even though I opposed their
confirmation.
No one has ever disputed our right in the Senate, regardless of who
was in charge, to use our constitutional duty of advice and consent to
delay and examine, sometimes causing nominations to be withdrawn or
even defeating nominees by a majority vote.
What I would like to suggest today is that if we continue the trend
of requiring cloture votes on presidential nominees--cabinet members
and others--that may work fine as long as we have a president and a
Senate of the same political party, but if we have a president and a
Senate of different political parties and everybody has become
accustomed to voting no on cloture, to requiring a cloture vote and
voting no, the Senate may never be able to confirm any cabinet members
or any sub-cabinet members when the Senate and the president are of
different political parties.
I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the
Senate is a body of precedent, and I think it would be wise for us to
stop and think, as we proceed, about whether it is wise to require
cloture votes for presidential nominees. Why don't we simply go ahead
and approve them or not approve them by majority vote?
We have an excellent nominee in Mr. Acosta. We are fortunate that
someone of his intelligence and experience is willing to serve as our
U.S. Secretary of Labor. I look forward to voting for and to the Senate
approving his confirmation later today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Alexander
Acosta to be Secretary of the Department of Labor.
Our Nation's Labor Secretary has a responsibility to protect the
safety and legal rights of the American workforce. From prosecuting
civil rights violations to monitoring workplace safety, the Department
of Labor ensures fair treatment. The Labor Secretary must also evaluate
our economy and advocate for fair and equal pay and benefits for
American workers. The Department provides the data and expertise for
policymakers, employers, and workers to make economic decisions.
[[Page S2589]]
Unfortunately, Mr. Acosta's testimony on these points at his
confirmation hearing was disappointing. He would not commit to support
updating overtime rules to make sure that employees get fair pay for
the hours they work. He would not commit to prioritize closing the
gender pay gap. He would not commit to keeping workplace safety
inspectors on the job.
Moreover, when Mr. Acosta led the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice during the George W. Bush Administration, the GAO
reported that there was a ``significant drop in the enforcement of
several major antidiscrimination and voting rights laws.'' The
Secretary of Labor must be a vigilant defender of the rights of
workers.
In a Cabinet where too many department heads are looking out for
millionaires and billionaires, we need a Secretary of Labor who will
look out for the American worker. I am not convinced that Mr. Acosta
will do that job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.