[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.