[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 123 (Thursday, July 20, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4090-S4094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, to the disappointment of the American
[[Page S4091]]
public, the world scientific community, and even to corporate giants
like Goldman Sachs and Cargill, President Trump recently decided to
withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. He cited as
justification a slew of alternative facts. Some of the most egregious
of these alternative facts came from a National Economic Resource
Associates--a group we will call NERA in this speech--report that was
commissioned and promoted by a group that calls itself the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce but fronts for the fossil fuel industry. ``U.S. Chamber of
Carbon'' might be a better and more accurate name for it.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, so-called, is a heavy hitter in
Washington. It was the second largest spender of anonymous outside
money, or dark money, in the 2016 Federal elections, second only to the
National Rifle Association. In addition to all that political election
spending, it wields the largest lobbying force on Capitol Hill. In
2015, the chamber dropped over $100 million on lobbying.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one of climate action's most
implacable enemies, as everybody here knows, despite the good climate
policies of so many companies on its board. Along with Senators Warren,
Sanders, and others, I examined this inconsistency between the
positions of the chamber and of its board members in our recent report,
``The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Out of Step with the American People
and its Members.''
Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
excerpts from the report, ``The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Out of Step
with the American People and its Members.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Out of Step With the American People and
Its Members
A Report from Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Elizabeth
Warren, Barbara Boxer, Bernard Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jeff
Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, and Edward Markey
(Select Climate Change Specific Excerpts)
Executive Summary
The United States Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber), the
largest lobbying organization in the country, has used its
considerable resources to fight legislation in Congress and
Obama Administration actions on tobacco and climate change at
home and abroad. A series of 2015 New York Times articles
exposed the Chamber's aggressive tactics to help the tobacco
industry fight international antismoking laws, regulations,
and policies, and described the organization's systematic
efforts to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's
work to address climate change and carbon pollution. These
activities raised questions about the Chamber's policy-making
process; one analyst concluded that ``the Chamber is at odds
with the interests of some, if not most, of its membership in
three other areas: climate change, minimum wages and
tobacco,'' and described its advocacy as ``aligned with the
small number of companies that are its largest
contributors.''
In response to the 2015 allegations, Senators Sheldon
Whitehouse, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer, Bernard Sanders,
Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, and Edward
Markey examined the positions and actions of Chamber Board
members to determine the extent to which the Chamber's
activities on tobacco and climate change reflect its Board
members' views and interests. The analysis focused on the 108
private-sector members of the Chamber's Board of Directors,
which the Chamber describes as ``the principal governing and
policymaking body of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. . . .
[that] determine[s] the U.S. Chamber's policy positions on
business issues and advise[s] the U.S. Chamber on appropriate
strategies to pursue.'' The findings of this analysis--based
on correspondence with the Chamber's Board members and a
review of publicly available information on Chamber Board
member positions on tobacco and climate change--reveal the
following:
The Chamber's positions and actions on tobacco and climate
change are at odds with those of its Board members.
Approximately half of the companies on the Chamber's Board of
Directors have adopted anti-tobacco and pro-climate positions
that contrast sharply with the Chamber's activities. Chamber
Board member companies have acknowledged the public health
harms of tobacco and support the efforts of their employees
to quit smoking. They have also taken public positions and
actions in support of efforts to reduce carbon emissions and
address climate change. Despite the positions of its Board
members, the Chamber opposes efforts in Congress and by the
Administration to address these issues.
Not a single Board member explicitly supported the
Chamber's lobbying efforts. In response to inquiries from
several senators, 21 Chamber Board members distinguished
their actions from the Chamber's on tobacco by describing
their own positive efforts, and five respondents
distinguished their actions and positions on climate change.
Five additional companies on the Chamber's Board explicitly
disagreed with the Chamber's positions on tobacco or tobacco
lobbying activities. For example, Chamber Board member
Celgene stated that it ``[does] not support tobacco use or
policies that promote tobacco use.'' Steward Health Care
Systems elaborated on its disagreement with the Chamber's
actions, saying that it ``was the only company on the Chamber
Board that went on record to oppose the initiative.'' Other
respondents sidestepped key questions and failed to respond
to questions about how they viewed the Chamber's activities.
Not one Board member explicitly supported the Chamber's
actions on tobacco and climate.
The Chamber's decision-making process and Board policy
decisions are not transparent. Ten Chamber Board members
revealed, in their responses to the congressional inquiries,
that they had no knowledge of or input into the Chamber's
lobbying activities on tobacco or climate issues. For
example, Chamber Board member Edward Jones, Inc., indicated
that the company ``[was] not advised of any campaigns... [and
is] not aware of any processes'' to develop these campaigns.
Sempra Energy reported that ``the issues raised in [the]
letter have not been discussed during the short time [it has]
been a member of the organization.'' Despite the Chamber's
description of the Board as its ``principal governing and
policymaking body,'' not one Chamber Board member explicitly
indicated that they were fully aware of and able to provide
their input and views to the Chamber regarding its actions on
tobacco and climate.
The findings in this report raise serious questions about
the Chamber's credibility and its actions on tobacco and
climate policy, and indicate that the Chamber does not
accurately represent the positions, input, and knowledge of
its membership.
I. Introduction
The United States Chamber of Commerce is the largest
lobbying organization in the country. OpenSecrets, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan research group that tracks the effects
of money and lobbying, showed that in 2015 alone, the Chamber
spent roughly $85 million on lobbying efforts, more than
twice the amount spent by the second-highest organization
(the National Association of Realtors). During the 2013-2014
election cycle, the Chamber spent $35 million on political
expenditures (through super PACs, 501(c) organizations, and/
or political party committees) that were ``outside'' or
independent of candidates' campaign committees.
The Chamber has used its considerable resources to fight
legislation and government action on tobacco and climate
change at home and abroad. A series of 2015 New York Times
articles exposed the Chamber's aggressive activities helping
the tobacco industry to fight international antismoking laws,
regulations, and policies, and described the organization's
systematic efforts to undermine the Environmental Protection
Agency's work to address climate change and carbon pollution.
While the Chamber claims that it ``reflects the grassroots
views of the entire business community'' and that it
represents the ``interests of more than three million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions'' when it
interacts with Congress, its positions and actions on tobacco
and climate do not appear to reflect or communicate the
positions of many of its member companies. The following
analysis shows that approximately half of the companies on
the Chamber's Board of Directors have publicly taken
positions on tobacco and climate change that are in conflict
with the Chamber's actions and positions. This calls into
question the Chamber's allegedly transparent decision-making
process, and suggests that the Chamber does not accurately
represent the positions of its member companies.
Moreover, the Chamber's lobbying is at odds with its own
public positions. The organization strongly professes that it
is anti-tobacco, saying that it ``is not in the business of
promoting cigarette smoking at home or abroad, period.'' It
also claims to support the environment, saying that it ``has
in its public documents, Hill letters and testimony,
supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the
atmosphere,'' and calling for a ``comprehensive climate
change law.'' Plainly, there is a broad gap between the
Chamber's stated policies, its Board members' positions, and
its actual lobbying activities.
III. The Chamber's Lobbying on Tobacco and Climate Issues
When the Chamber weighs in, many in Washington, D.C.,
listen. The Chamber is the largest lobbying organization in
the country and claims to represent the ``interests of more
than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and
regions'' when it interacts with Congress. OpenSecrets, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan research group that tracks the effects
of money and lobbying, showed that in 2015 alone, the Chamber
spent roughly $85 million on lobbying efforts, more than
twice the amount spent by the second-highest organization
(National Association of Realtors). During the 2013-2014
election cycle, the Chamber spent $35 million on political
expenditures (through super PACs, 501(c) organizations, and/
or political party committees)
[[Page S4092]]
that were ``outside'' or independent of candidates' campaign
committees.
The Chamber has attacked U.S. climate policies with similar
zeal. According to The New York Times, in early 2014, a group
of 30 corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists, and Republican
political strategists gathered at the Chamber's headquarters
to devise legal strategies to dismantle the President's Clean
Power Plan--before President Obama had even introduced a
draft proposal of it. The Chamber has also been vocal about
its opposition to climate action when testifying before
Congress. For instance, the Chamber has testified in
opposition to the Paris Agreement, despite the fact that many
of its Board member companies have pledged to support the
goals of the Agreement. Additionally, nearly all of Chamber
campaign contributions--94%--have reportedly gone to climate
change denier candidates.
V. Findings
Based on the responses to the Tobacco and Climate Letters
and public positions and policies of Board members, the
report finds that:
Approximately half of the companies on the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce's Board of Directors have anti-tobacco and/or pro-
climate positions.
None of the respondents to the Tobacco and Climate Letters
expressed explicit support for the Chamber's activities, and
numerous Chamber Board members distanced themselves from
Chamber activities on tobacco or climate.
The Chamber's decision-making process lacks transparency,
even with respect to its Board members. A number of Board
members were unaware of key Chamber policymaking and lobbying
decisions on tobacco and climate.
Climate Change Findings
Almost half of the Chamber Board members (52 of 108, 48%)
have taken public positions supporting efforts to reduce
carbon emissions and address climate change, including eight
of the companies that responded to the Senate inquiry on
Chamber climate policies (see Appendix V). The remaining
Board member companies appear to have no public position on
climate change as a public health or environmental issue.
These 52 companies that support efforts to address climate
change, have undertaken their own initiatives to reduce
carbon emissions, support the EPA's work on climate change,
or have publicly committed to support of the Paris Agreement.
Indeed, many Chamber Board members are national and
international leaders on this issue. For example:
Allstate is a member of the Ceres Company Network, a group
of companies that have agreed to improve their environmental
and social performance, publicly report on their
sustainability practices, and continuously improve their
performance and disclosure on sustainability issues. Allstate
was also named to the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index
(CDLI) from 2008 to 2014 for its efforts to reduce its carbon
footprint and transparency on its climate change adaptation.
AT&T is one of more than 150 companies to have signed on to
the American Business Act on Climate Pledge. AT&T has
committed to reduce its direct greenhouse emissions by 20
percent and reduce its electricity consumption by 2020.
BMO Financial Group stated that it is ``focused on reducing
our environmental footprint, setting clear goals and
consistently maintaining carbon neutrality across our entire
enterprise.''
Las Vegas Sands was named to the CDP's ``A list'' in 2015
for its efforts to address and disclose corporate climate
change information.
Ryder received the EPA SmartWay Excellence Award in 2013
and 2014 in recognition of its efforts to address carbon
pollution and emissions.
Sanofi ``strives to reduce [its] environmental impact, so
that [it] can contribute to decreasing the effects of climate
change. This includes a two-pronged approach to reduce [its]
carbon footprint and to combat diseases directly correlated
with climate change.'' Sanofi says that it has reduced its
carbon emissions by 60 times, cut transport costs by 50
percent, and has set a goal of reducing its water consumption
by 25 percent between 2010 and 2020.
3M is a founding member of the National Climate Coalition.
In its 2015 Sustainability Report, 3M touted its ``history of
proactive leadership in addressing both the challenges and
opportunities presented by climate change and energy
conservation.''
UPS stated it was ``pleased to join 12 other firms at the
White House on July 27, 2015, in launching the American
Business Act on Climate Change . . . [W]e pledged first to
reduce our carbon intensity by 20% by 2020, from a 2007
baseline. Second, we plan for our alternative fuel and
technology fleet, which will number about 8,000 trucks by the
end of the year, to have driven a cumulative 1 billion miles
by 2017.''
No Chamber Board members that responded to the Senate
letter explicitly supported the Chamber's lobbying actions on
climate policy. Seven respondents to the Climate Letter
indicated that they do not agree with every action taken by
trade associations of which they are a member, and three
companies declined to express a position. Two of the eleven
companies that responded to the Climate Letter (Citadel and
HCSC) indicated that they were not involved in the Chamber's
climate-related activities, and the other nine did not
indicate whether they were involved in the Chamber's climate
policy decision-making process.
Despite the fact that nearly half of Chamber Board members
have acknowledged the risk of climate change or are actively
working to address the risks of climate change, the Chamber
has opposed executive action on climate and lobbied heavily
in support of legislation undermining climate action,
assembling a ``vast network of lawyers and lobbyists ranging
from state capitols to Capitol Hill, aided by Republican
governors and congressional leaders,'' to oppose President
Obama's climate change regulations.
VI. Conclusion
The Chamber claims that it ``reflects the grassroots views
of the entire business community when the organization
testifies before Congress or regulatory agencies,
disseminates reports or statements to the media, or sends
comments or letters to Capitol Hill and to policymakers.'' It
states that ``everyone involved in the process must help
develop positions that benefit the entire business community,
rather than any given narrow interest . . . The process must
be open and above board.''
But this investigation fmds these claims to be plainly
untrue. Despite its claims of a representative policy-making
process, the Chamber does not speak for many of its Board
members on two of the most pressing public health issues of
our time. The discrepancy between how the Chamber and its
Board members act on tobacco and climate is stark. Bloomberg
columnist Barry Ritholtz contends that it is easy for the
Chamber to ignore its numerous member companies that oppose
its stance because one third of its revenue comes from just
19 companies, many of them in the energy industry.
Indeed, based on the responses of Chamber Board member
companies, the Chamber seems to act at will, without broadly
consulting its leading members about fundamental policy
positions on which it spends millions of dollars in collected
dues.
Some American business icons have demonstrated leadership
by disaffiliating themselves from the Chamber over
fundamental policy disagreements. Apple, Exelon, and Pacific
Gas and Electric (PG&E), have left the Chamber over its
destructive climate policies. Nike left the Board for similar
reasons, and other members--Intel, Johnson & Johnson, and
Microsoft--publicly disagree with and distance themselves
from the Chamber's climate position. And CVS Health withdrew
its membership from the Chamber last year due to the group's
tobacco lobbying.
Many Chamber members do good work to address the risks of
tobacco and climate change. But too many of these members
quietly disapprove of the Chamber's positions without taking
action. As long as these Board members lend their tacit
support to an organization that spearheads systematic efforts
against policies to limit tobacco and climate change, it is
difficult to accept their claims that they are anti-tobacco
or good on climate.
We encourage Chamber Board members to stop looking the
other way where there is disagreement, and defending their
Chamber membership as supporting free speech. This
positioning makes it appear as though they're trying to have
it both ways and damages their credibility and efforts in
support of positive action. These companies should take
responsibility for the positions and actions of the Chamber,
and use their leverage as an opportunity to shift the tenor
of a powerful lobbying force away from harming public health
and towards positions that help reduce tobacco use and
address the risks of climate change.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. When President Trump announced his withdrawal from
the Paris Agreement, he used these alternative facts from that chamber-
commissioned NERA report. Here is what Trump said:
Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the
onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United
States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by
2025. . . . This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs.
End of alternative facts quote.
This was another assertion:
By 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by
the previous administration would cut production for the
following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23
percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal--and I happen
to love the coal miners--down 86 percent; natural gas down 31
percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close
to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs,
while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many
cases, much worse than that.
End quote of his alternative facts.
Countless reviewers, including PolitiFact, Scientific American--that
known crazy, phony, liberal publication, Scientific American--CNBC, and
Fortune magazine, fact-checked the President's speech. It did not fare
well. PolitiFact warned us to ``take these statistics with a grain of
salt.'' An analysis of the underlying report was done by Kenneth
Gillingham, an economics professor at Yale University. He pointed out
that the NERA study made up a hypothetical set of policy actions to
reach those goals. Those policy actions may well never have been
[[Page S4093]]
taken by anyone to comply with the Paris Agreement, but that was what
they used. Second, NERA only modeled the cost side.
You have heard the phrase ``cost-benefit equation.'' They only looked
at the costs. They didn't ever look at the benefit side. This is phony
accounting when you only look at one side of the ledger.
NERA, of course, has a history of producing misleading reports for
its industry sponsors. In 2015, it released a report for the National
Association of Manufacturers on the proposed ozone standard, claiming
it would cost as much as $140 billion per year. On the cost side, EPA
estimated it would cost a fraction of what NERA estimated, less than 12
percent. The economic consulting firm Synapse analyzed the NAM report
and found it ``grossly overstates compliance costs, due to major flaws,
math errors, and unfounded assumptions . . . these assumptions and
other flaws led NERA to overstate compliance costs by more than 700
percent.''
That is just on the cost side. Once again, they didn't even bother to
look at the benefits. It is a one-side-of-the-ledger-phony analysis. Of
course, the chamber commissioned NERA to do the same thing for it on
climate: overestimate the costs and ignore the benefits. In this world
of climate denial, this is a classic maneuver.
Senator Ted Cruz cited the NERA report in his CNN op-ed urging
President Trump to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement a
day before President Trump cited these stats in his withdrawal speech.
Cruz, Trump, and the chamber ignored more than 1,000 companies that
supported the United States remaining in the Paris Agreement, including
several chamber member companies. Some of these have publicly distanced
themselves from the chamber as a result of the President's decision. A
recent Bloomberg news article was headlined, ``Paris Pullout Pits
Chamber Against Some of Its Biggest Members.''
Citigroup said: ``We have been outspoken in our support for the Paris
agreement and have had a dialogue with the Chamber about how its views
and advocacy on climate policy are inconsistent with Citi's position.''
Similar distancing came from Dow and Ford.
Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran a piece, ``Is the most
powerful lobbyist in Washington''--that is the so-called U.S. Chamber
of Commerce--``losing its grip,'' exploring this tension around climate
in more detail. The article said: ``[P]erhaps the most nettlesome issue
for the Chamber has been climate change.'' It calls out the chamber's
claims to be neutral on the Paris Agreement, while actually providing
``ammunition for foes of the agreement.''
The article highlights the chamber's climate denial efforts,
including its 2009 proposal to hold a public trial on climate science--
what it dubbed ``the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century.'' New
Mexico-based utility PNM Resources actually quit the chamber because
that idea was so preposterous.
The Washington Post identified 8 of the 25 companies that signed an
ad in the New York Times supporting the Paris Agreement as chamber
members, including GE, Microsoft, and Walt Disney. The CEOs of these
companies publicly criticized President Trump's decision.
Microsoft's Brad Smith said:
We're disappointed with the decision to exit the Paris
Agreement. Microsoft remains committed to doing our part to
achieve its goals.
GE's Jeff Immelt said:
Disappointed with today's decision on the Paris Agreement.
Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend
on government.
Walt Disney's Bob Iger said:
As a matter of principle, I've resigned from the
President's Council over the #Paris Agreement withdrawal.
The chamber is out of step with its own members on climate change,
maintaining a scientifically untenable position as every one of our
State universities knows. Who is pulling the chamber's chain? It is
hard to tell since the chamber hides from the public who its donors
are, but I suspect the answer is the same as to why the Republicans
continue to revive the hated, zombie healthcare bill despite huge
public distaste for it.
Mr. President, that brings me to the nomination of John Bush to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The chamber's rigid anti-
climate stance is part of a fossil fuel political program that holds
this Chamber in a state of intimidation and inaction on climate change.
As Congress cowers before this fossil fuel political presence, we are
now advancing the nomination of a climate denier to the Federal bench.
John Bush was not nominated because of any track record of
distinguished performance or demonstrated commitment to public service.
To the contrary, his most notable achievements seem to be a series of
wildly offensive blog postings and public statements, denying that
climate change is real and mocking it, comparing a woman's right to
choose to the evil of slavery, casually using vile slurs against gay
people. On and on goes the list.
Bush has written a number of posts dealing with environmental issues
in which he insists on placing the terms ``global warming'' and
``climate change'' in quotation marks, insinuating that they do not
really exist. Tell that to your home State universities.
With this appalling track record, why was he nominated? It is not
hard to figure that out. He is here because through those offensive
blog posts and by flagging himself as a loyal climate denier, he
signals himself as a willing foot soldier of the big special interests.
These big special interests are intent on capturing our courts, just as
they have captured so much of Congress.
Judicial nominees like Mr. Bush are exactly what these special
interests want, to make sure they can, first, maintain their dark money
influence. That is their most particular key. That is the mother ship
off of which all the other special interest mischief they perform comes
from and of course to see to it that these big interests are never held
accountable to the American people. That is the signal he sends.
Bush has flagged that he will rule the right way for the big special
interests that fund the Republican Party, and the special interests'
big reward is his nomination and confirmation. He has shown that he is
familiar with the recipes when it comes time to cook the decisions.
My Democratic colleagues and I respect any President's desire and
prerogative to fill the vacancies in the executive and judicial
branches. Even though I understand we will not see eye to eye with our
colleagues across the aisle on every nominee, Senate Democrats have
given the President's nominees a very fair shake. This is no normal
nominee. This is a freak who lowers the bar on judicial nominees
forever.
If Mr. Bush wants to exercise his First Amendment right to spout
offensive, ignorant, and hateful nonsense as some kind of nutty
Breitbart blogger, he is free to do so, but that is not the measure--or
has not until today been the measure of a Federal judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals.
Mr. Bush is patently unqualified for this position, well outside any
version of the mainstream, and his appointment can reasonably be
predicted to bring dishonor and preordained partiality to the
judiciary. I regret we are at this point.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Under the previous order, all
postcloture time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Bush
nomination?
Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
[[Page S4094]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 164 Ex.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--47
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
McCain
Stabenow
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________