[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 12, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6126-S6133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                            OPIOID EPIDEMIC

  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague, and I am going to talk about him 
in a second and the work we have done with regard to pushing back 
against the opioid epidemic that has hit our States. In this body, 
every single Member is affected by it, and our country is affected by 
it in very significant ways.
  Because of the dangerous hurricanes that are approaching our coast, 
it looks as though the vote we had expected tomorrow and the debate we 
had expected tomorrow on the opioid package may be postponed based on 
what I just heard from the majority leader. But in the next several 
days, the Senate is expected to take up comprehensive legislation that 
comes from four or five different committees in Congress to fight the 
addiction crisis, to help our communities combat some of the deadliest 
aspects of this crisis nationally. This help is urgently needed.
  Let's start with talking about how Congress got here.
  First, just a couple of years ago, we passed two bills in Congress 
that were historic and are making a difference. One is called the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA; the other is called 
the 21st Century Cures Act.
  CARA, which I coauthored with my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse, who is 
on the Senate floor with us--he spoke just a moment ago--provides 
resources directly to evidence-based prevention, treatment, and 
recovery programs. These are nonprofit programs. For the most part, 
they are able to apply to the Federal Government directly for grant 
money. They are doing things that are innovative and new to try to get 
at this problem, and in many respects, they are working and making a 
difference.
  This year alone, there will be about $608 million spent on these 
programs that offer innovative solutions to this stubborn problem that 
is affecting everyone in this Chamber.
  The Cures legislation, 21st Century Cures legislation, this year will 
be $500 million annually. That goes directly to the States, and the 
States then give grants to various programs in those States.
  In my home State of Ohio, for instance, $26 million has come each of 
the last 2 years. Sadly, Ohio is one of the hardest hit States in the 
country, so we have a larger grant allocation than some States that 
have not had as many overdoses and deaths and rates of addiction that 
are as high as we have had.
  I was a very strong supporter of the 21st Century Cures funding, and 
I applaud Senators Alexander and Murray, as well as Senator Blunt and 
other Appropriations Committee members on both sides of the aisle for 
their work on that.
  Of course, with regard to the CARA legislation, it is actually 
working out there. I have now had the opportunity to see how it is 
working. I have been to about a dozen CARA grant recipients in Ohio 
over the last year alone. I have seen new and powerful ways that the 
communities back in Ohio are helping to turn the tide of addiction.
  Last month, as an example, I visited the Whitehall fire station 
outside of Columbus, OH. They are doing something innovative for a fire 
station. They have opened their doors and partnered with another 
organization. They get CARA funding, and the other organization gets 
Cures funding to provide immediate help for those who are coming in and 
are seeking it or have overdosed; Narcan has been applied and has 
reversed the effects of these overdoses. Yet that gap that so often 
occurs in our communities doesn't occur there because it is seamless. 
People can go right into treatment.
  The program, again, was made possible by this CARA grant. It opens 
the doors of the fire station, and it is working.
  I was there at a time when, just coincidentally, an addict came in. 
His name was Blake. Blake was, as he described himself, a heroin 
addict, and he had heroin on his person. I had the opportunity to speak 
with Blake and offer him some words of encouragement. I had an 
opportunity to ask him why he was there and what had happened in the 
past. He said that he had been to three treatment programs. They hadn't 
worked. He had gone straight from a short-term treatment program right 
back to the streets. The gap had occurred.
  He also said that he was ready, and he appreciated the opportunity to 
go straight into a treatment program, which he had not had before.
  I had a chance to speak with him, and I told him to stay in touch 
with me, to let me know what is going on. Last week, he called, and 
Blake said that he is now in a 3-month treatment program in Portsmouth, 
OH. He is optimistic; he is confident. He believes that because of this 
approach, he has an opportunity now to get clean, to get back with his 
family and get back to work.
  This is what is often needed: a seamless transition from immediate 
medical attention--the application of Narcan to reverse the effects--to 
treatment, to longer term recovery in order for people to overcome 
their addiction. That is what CARA and Cures prioritize, and that is 
why these programs are so important.
  Once again, we will see in the funding this year that those programs 
have been held up. The good parts of the programs, in particular, are 
being used as an example for the entire country.
  Despite the legislative progress we have made, and despite what I see 
back home with communities beginning to make a difference, overall, the 
situation is not getting better; it is getting worse. You might ask: 
Why is that?
  Well, I believe it is for one simple reason, and that is the advent 
of new drugs, particularly less expensive and more powerful synthetic 
opioids that have come into our communities in the last few years. The 
new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, show 
that overdose deaths increased 9 percent from 2016 to 2017, the last 
year for which we have data. My home State of Ohio had a 9\1/2\ percent 
increase in overdose deaths.
  In total, CDC estimates that 72,000 Americans--72,000 Americans--died 
last year from overdoses, the No. 1 cause of death for Americans under 
the age of 50. Over 48,000 of those overdose deaths were caused by 
opioids, and about 30,000 of those were caused by synthetic forms, 
particularly fentanyl. That is more than 60 percent, so this is the big 
issue right now.
  Two-thirds of the overdose deaths in my home State of Ohio are being 
caused by synthetic opioids, fentanyl. Columbus, OH, unfortunately had 
a number of deaths over a short period of time, all due to fentanyl. 
There were about 20,000 fentanyl overdose deaths in 2016, meaning there 
has been a 50-percent increase in just 1 year.
  When you go from 2013 to 2017, there has been an 850-percent increase 
just during 5 years--an 850-percent increase in fentanyl overdose 
deaths in our country.
  The opioid crisis has continued to tighten its grip around 
communities across our country, and the emergence of fentanyl has 
presented a new challenge in turning the tide of this epidemic. Just as 
we were making progress, this more deadly, less expensive scourge has 
come into our families, our communities, our States. That is why we 
need to take action--and take action this week.
  I would like to thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, and the 
Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, for agreeing to bring this 
legislation to the floor.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Lamar Alexander for his good work 
in bringing together all of the different proposals from these four or 
five committees I talked about and negotiating with all sides to come 
up with consensus legislation. This should be nonpartisan, not just 
bipartisan. This is something that is attacking our communities at 
their core.
  I would like to thank and commend the several committees that have 
held public hearings and contributed legislative ideas to this mix. 
That includes the Judiciary Committee, the HELP Committee, the Finance 
Committee, and others.
  This bipartisan consensus package puts politics aside and does what 
is right for our communities. It includes some additional legislative 
priorities I have been working on over the past couple of years that I 
believe are going to make a real difference in this fight.
  Earlier this year, again with Senator Whitehouse and others, we 
introduced CARA 2.0, the next version of the Comprehensive Addiction 
and Recovery Act. A number of those provisions are included in this 
package.

[[Page S6127]]

  One is a national quality standard and best practices for recovery 
housing. It is critical for people, as they transition out of treatment 
and into longer term recovery, to have this housing. But it also needs 
to meet these higher standards because of many examples where it has 
not and has failed those individuals and families.
  The legislation also authorizes support for high school and college 
students to help children and young adults recover from substance abuse 
disorders. We have had amazing models in Ohio for this, like the 
Collegiate Recovery Community at Ohio State. Columbus is now opening 
its first recovery high school next year.
  Finally, CARA 2.0 contributed the opioid legislation that includes 
$60 million for a plan of safe care for babies born dependent on drugs. 
Their mothers are addicted, and they are born with neonatal abstinence 
syndrome. It is a very sad situation, but it is a reality in my State 
and in so many others.
  To further help these newborn babies, the legislation includes what 
is called the CRIB Act, which is bipartisan legislation I coauthored 
that helps newborns suffering from addiction get the best care possible 
in the best setting possible to get the love and support they need to 
be able to recover.
  It will also help ensure that babies born with neonatal abstinence 
syndrome get the help they need in their early stages of development, 
so they can live up to their God-given purpose in life, which is not to 
live with this.
  The legislation before us also reauthorizes a number of important 
programs that have a proven record of success, like drug courts, like 
the drug-free communities prevention grants, like the high-intensity 
drug trafficking areas, where law enforcement can better coordinate at 
every level. These are all positive strides that will help improve what 
is working in combating this epidemic and provide more resources to 
help some of the most vulnerable groups affected.
  But, colleagues, I think the most important and immediate difference 
in turning the tide on this opioid epidemic will come from a bill that 
is called the STOP Act. It is a bipartisan bill that I coauthored with 
Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. It will combat the scourge of fentanyl we 
talked about earlier. This issue of an 850-percent increase in this one 
kind of drug coming in, causing more and more overdoses--synthetic 
opioids--has to be addressed; 81 Americans are dying every single day. 
That is the best data we have from last year. This year, unfortunately, 
it is likely to be even higher. It is a new poison flooding our 
communities.
  The STOP Act will close a loophole that drug traffickers have been 
using to ship fentanyl into our country. Unbelievably, fentanyl is 
actually manufactured primarily in China, and it primarily comes into 
our communities through the U.S. mail system. You might think this 
comes overland from Mexico or somewhere else, but this is coming in 
through our mail system, primarily from China.
  We conducted an 18-month investigation into this in the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, and we revealed just how 
easy it is to purchase fentanyl online and have it shipped to the 
United States.
  Based on our undercover investigation, these drugs can be found 
through a simple Google search, and overseas sellers we accessed 
essentially guaranteed delivery if the fentanyl was sent through the 
U.S. mail system.
  To be clear, they guaranteed delivery if it is sent through the U.S. 
mail system, not if it is sent through other carriers, like private 
carriers--FedEx, UPS, DHL, and others.
  It is easy to see why they prefer the Postal Service for shipping 
these deadly synthetic drugs. The Postal Service has a weaker screening 
standard than do the private carriers.
  After 9/11, Congress passed a law requiring carriers like UPS, FedEx, 
and DHL to get what is actually called electronic advance data on 
international packages entering the United States. This electronic 
advance data allows law enforcement to have a chance to stop this 
poison because they can find out where the package is from, what is in 
it, and where it is going. They can then use good data, use algorithms 
that they have come up with to determine which packages are suspect and 
pull them off the line.
  I have seen this. I have seen U.S. Customs and Border Protection do 
it at distribution centers for these private carriers. I have also 
seen, unfortunately, that the Postal Service is not doing what they 
should be doing.
  Without the information identifying packages, it is next to 
impossible; it is like identifying a needle in a haystack.
  Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin, and it is relatively 
inexpensive. It is so deadly that as little as 2 milligrams, equal to a 
few specks of salt, is enough to be fatal. Drug users and dealers have 
moved to fentanyl as a more accessible, less expensive alternative. I 
am told that 1 gram of the deadly mixture of heroin and fentanyl can 
cost about half as much on the street as 1 gram of heroin alone.
  Drug users seeking a less expensive and stronger high are seeking it 
out, and drug dealers are mixing it into a number of other street 
drugs. No street drug is safe because the fentanyl is being mixed. It 
is being laced into all kinds of other drugs, often unknowingly to the 
person buying the drug.
  To give you an idea of how deadly this drug is, recently police in 
Columbus seized 2.2 pounds of fentanyl, which is equal to about 3\1/2\ 
cups--a small enough amount to fit in a plastic bag in your kitchen. 
That 2.2 pounds of fentanyl is enough to kill 500,000 people, roughly 
the population of the city of Cleveland.
  Because of its extreme potency, deadly doses can be shipped in small 
packages that are almost impossible to identify without having the 
necessary information and screening devices in the Postal Service. The 
U.S. Postal Service system isn't required to do it yet. As a result, 
they have chosen not to do so. Only recently, under congressional 
pressure, have they begun getting this data on some packages entering 
the United States.

  Even so, last year, based on their testimony, they say they have 
received data on 36 percent of the international packages. That is a 
step in the right direction. By the way, that still means that over 318 
million packages are coming here with no screening at all.
  Even when they have identified drugs--packages that are likely 
containing drugs--only 80 percent are given to law enforcement. So 20 
percent is still going into our communities. This needs to be changed. 
It is a glaring loophole. Everyone knows it. It undermines the safety 
and security of our country in fundamental ways.
  The STOP Act will significantly disrupt the flow of fentanyl into the 
United States by simply holding the U.S. Postal Service, a Federal 
agency, to the same standards as private carriers. It will require the 
Postal Service to collect advance electronic data immediately on 70 
percent of packages entering the United States by the end of the year 
and 100 percent for China. Then, it will require 100 percent of 
international packages in the United States by the end of 2020.
  It is a commonsense solution to address the most urgent and deadliest 
aspects of the opioid epidemic we face. At the very least, it will 
increase the risk of sending these drugs into our country and raise the 
street price of fentanyl. That is why it has such broad bipartisan 
support. There is a growing momentum behind this legislation, and I 
look forward to the Senate's passing it in the next several days as 
part of the broader legislation we talked about earlier.
  It will not solve the crisis, but it will act as a tourniquet to stop 
the flow of fentanyl in this country and it will allow comprehensive 
programs, such as CARA and the Cures legislation, to be prioritized and 
to function and to allow Americans to live up to their full potential 
and to allow our communities to heal.
  I look forward to President Trump's signing this legislation into 
law--both the broader opioid legislation and the STOP Act--so it can 
begin making a difference in communities in my home State of Ohio and 
all around the country.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am delighted to be joined today by 
my colleague Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota. Both my home State of 
Rhode

[[Page S6128]]

Island and her State of Minnesota are heavily involved in the booming 
renewable energy sector.
  President Trump has called climate change a hoax, but no matter how 
much his administration may try to prop up the old, dirty, dangerous, 
polluting fossil fuel industry, there is no denying the clean energy 
revolution.
  The rapid growth of renewables has been underway for decades, but it 
has really accelerated in the last several years. It took global wind 
and solar developers 40 years to install the first 1 trillion watts of 
power generation. A recent estimate from Bloomberg found that the next 
trillion will be installed within 5 years. That is 40 years for the 
first trillion and 5 years for the second. Part of the reason is that 
lower costs of renewables mean that building out the second trillion 
will cost half as much as the first trillion.
  This chart shows the year-to-year costs of generating energy from 
wind, from Lazard. Since 2009, the costs for onshore wind have dropped 
by two-thirds. Onshore wind costs are down two-thirds in basically a 
decade.
  Here is the same chart for solar power. Utility-scale solar costs 
have dropped 86 percent over the same time period. ``In some 
scenarios,'' writes Lazard, ``the full lifecycle costs of building and 
operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating 
costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or 
nuclear.''
  When you look at the drop in solar costs compared to other resources, 
you see how dramatic the change has been. This graphic is from the 
World Economic Forum.
  The renewable industry in America has grown to 3.3 million jobs--more 
than all fossil fuel jobs combined. AT&T has been a leader in this, 
adopting the World Wildlife Fund's Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers' 
Principles and signing up under that for 220 megawatts from an Oklahoma 
wind farm and 300 megawatts from a Texas wind farm, one of the largest 
corporate renewable purchases in history. So, congratulations, Texas 
and Oklahoma, for the new home State renewable energy jobs, and AT&T, 
for your leadership.
  In Rhode Island, the Governor's 2018 Rhode Island Clean Energy 
Industry Report has shown that clean energy jobs have risen by 2 
percent since 2014, bringing over 6,600 new clean energy jobs and 
bringing us to nearly 16,000 Rhode Islanders working in clean energy, 
and it is projected to continue to grow. We lead also on energy 
efficiency, ranking third on the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy's 2017 scorecard.
  In Senator Smith's State of Minnesota, the public utilities 
commission has required since 1993 that there be a social cost of 
carbon standard for new infrastructure at $43 per ton of carbon 
emitted. Minnesota leads in being a State whose public utility 
commission is factoring the cost of carbon into its decision making 
rather than making the general public pay for what the carbon-producing 
utilities should be paying for.
  Other States are powering forward. I saw Mr. Bennet on the floor. His 
State of Colorado Public Utilities Commission just unanimously approved 
an Xcel Energy program to build out a cleaner energy mix and retire 
older fossil fuel units. Specifically, they are going to retire 660 
megawatts of operating coal, close it down, and replace it with $2.5 
billion in new renewables and battery storage. The initial request for 
bids brought in a flood of new renewable energy proposals below the 
cost of existing coal and natural gas facilities.
  Now, here, because of the politics, political funding, Citizens 
United, and all the trash that is unleashed in our politics, there is a 
sharp political divide on climate change and renewable energy brought 
to you by our fossil fuel friends. But out in the real world, some of 
the most Republican States are actually at the forefront. The 
Department of Energy last week released a report showing that Texas is 
leading the Nation in generation, with over 22 gigawatts of wind 
capacity. Right behind them are Oklahoma and Kansas, with more than 5 
gigawatts of installed wind capacity. Just over 6 percent of the 
nation's electricity in 2017 was wind nationally, but if you go to 
Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, they all have more than 30 
percent of their power coming from clean wind power.
  Oklahoma is at 32 percent. Kansas is at 36 percent. Iowa is at 37 
percent. South Dakota is at 30 percent, and North Dakota is at 27 
percent.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Department of 
Energy reports printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Texas, Oklahoma, and Iowa Lead the Nation

       Washington, DC--Today, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
     released three wind energy market reports demonstrating that 
     as wind installations continue across the country and 
     offshore wind projects move beyond the planning process, 
     technology costs and wind energy prices continue to fall. The 
     reports cover three market sectors: land-based utility scale, 
     distributed, and offshore wind.
       Highlights from this past year include larger, more 
     powerful wind turbines and lower technology costs and wind 
     power prices for on land and offshore applications, as well 
     as U.S. distributed wind capacity crossing the 1 gigawatt 
     (GW) threshold.
       The 2017 Wind Technologies Market Report, prepared by DOE's 
     Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, found the following:
       The U.S. wind industry installed 7,017 megawatts (MW) of 
     capacity last year, bringing total utility-scale wind 
     capacity to nearly 89 GW.
       In total, 41 states operated utility-scale wind projects. 
     Texas leads the nation with over 22 GW of wind capacity, 
     while Oklahoma, Iowa, California, and Kansas have more than 
     5,000 MW.
       Another 13 states have more than 1,000 MW.
       In 2017, wind energy contributed 6.3 percent of the 
     nation's electricity supply, more than 10 percent of total 
     generation in 14 states, and more than 30 percent in four of 
     those states--Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
       Bigger turbines with longer blades are enhancing wind plant 
     performance. Wind projects built in the past few years have 
     seen capacity factors increase by 79 percent compared to 
     projects installed from 1998 to 2001.
       The average installed cost of wind projects in 2017 was 
     $1,611 per kilowatt (kW), down 33 percent from the peak in 
     2009-2010.
       The U.S. wind industry supported more than 105,000 jobs and 
     saw $11 billion invested in new wind plants in 2017.
       The 2017 Distributed Wind Market Report, prepared by DOE's 
     Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, highlights the 
     following:
       In total, U.S. wind turbines in distributed applications 
     reached a cumulative installed capacity of 1,076 MW. This 
     capacity comes from roughly 81,000 turbines installed across 
     all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 
     Guam.
       In 2017, Iowa, Ohio, and California led the nation in new 
     distributed wind capacity installed as a result of large-
     scale turbines installed by commercial and industrial 
     facilities and electricity distribution utilities.
       Thirty-five percent of distributed wind projects installed 
     in 2017 were at homes, and 25 percent were agricultural 
     installations.
       U.S. manufacturers of small wind turbines and their supply 
     chain vendors are located in 27 states.
       Between 2015 and 2017, U.S.-based small wind turbine 
     manufacturers accounted for more than $226 million in export 
     sales.
       The 2017 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Update, prepared 
     by DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, found the 
     following:
       The U.S. offshore wind industry recently took a leap 
     forward as commercial-scale projects were competitively 
     selected in Massachusetts (800 MW), Rhode Island (400 MW), 
     and Connecticut (200 MW).
       New York, New Jersey, and Maryland also have offshore wind 
     projects in the development pipeline.
       The U.S. offshore wind project pipeline has reached a total 
     of 25,464 MW of capacity across 13 states, including the 30 
     MW Block Island Wind Farm commissioned in 2016.
       In Europe--where most offshore wind development has 
     occurred to date--recent offshore wind project auctions have 
     continued the trend of developers committing to lower 
     electricity prices for projects that will be operating in the 
     2020s.
       New offshore wind turbines are being developed with 10-12 
     megawatts of capacity (compared to an average capacity of 2.3 
     MW for land-based turbines and 5.3 MW for offshore wind 
     turbines installed in 2017). As a result, demand is 
     increasing for specialized ships that will be able to install 
     these very large turbines in U.S. waters.
       About 60 percent of the U.S. offshore wind resource lies in 
     deep waters. Developing a project in deep waters requires 
     wind turbines on floating foundations.
       In the U.S., floating offshore wind projects have been 
     proposed off the coasts of Maine, California, and Hawaii.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, amazingly, this report comes from the 
same Energy Department currently pushing coal bailout proposals, but 
that is what you get from helpless, weak leadership from this 
administration that will not face up either to the scientific reality 
of climate change or

[[Page S6129]]

the economic reality of energy markets.
  FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has just finalized a 
rule for energy storage that could spur as much as 50 gigawatts of 
additional energy storage across the United States, and that could be a 
conservative estimate if renewables prices keep along those 
trajectories we showed before. That FERC rule on energy storage, by the 
way, is unanimous and bipartisan. The ISO system operators, like ISO-
New England, are doing their best to remove obstacles that had kept 
renewables from competing fairly in capacity auctions and dispatch 
decisions. This is saving consumers money.
  It was reported by Utility Dive that during the July heat wave in New 
England, distributed solar, which can reduce demand during peaks, saved 
customers some $20 million.
  This is reliable stuff out in Iowa, where Midwestern is the ISO. They 
figured out the algorithms to treat wind as reliable baseload power, 
and the FERC storage rule will further enable this transition.
  As you can imagine, the fossil fuel industry is not letting this go 
without a fight. They are up to their usual political mischief to try 
to protect their $700 billion annual subsidy that they get from 
polluting for free. Their shady tactics are just as would be expected.
  Start with the fossil fuel industry. They put in front of them the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers 
to screen what is really the dirty fossil fuel industry. Those two 
groups put in front of them some fake consumer group called the 
Consumer Energy Alliance, and that fake Consumer Energy Alliance put in 
front of it something called Kentuckians for Solar Fairness, all in an 
effort to fight rooftop solar for individuals in Kentucky. That is the 
kind of nonsense the fossil fuel industry gets up to to try to defend 
itself. But despite that, you can't stop progress. You can't deny 
costs. You can't win against energy that is cheaper, reliable, and 
carbon-free. It is time for us to wake up, throw our weight into clean 
energy, and move forward into the future, rather than let the fossil 
fuel industry condemn us to a dirty past.
  With that I yield to my colleague, Senator Smith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
continue with my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator 
Whitehouse as he takes to the Senate floor to speak on climate change 
for the 219th time.
  Mr. Whitehouse is the Senate leader on climate change, and his 
foresight, actions, and determination on this issue are remarkable. I 
am very proud to join him today.
  Climate change is a dire threat to our environment and to our 
children's future, and yet, if we rise to the challenge of responding 
to climate change, it will offer us major economic opportunity. The 
clean energy transition is already creating jobs, reducing the cost of 
generating electricity, clearing the air, and improving our health.
  The old idea that responding to climate change comes at the expense 
of the American economy is outdated and inaccurate. The clean energy 
economy is the economy of the 21st century. We see this every day in 
Minnesota, which is a national leader in the clean energy transition.
  The climate is rapidly changing, and these changes are caused by 
human activities that release greenhouse gases. I know this because it 
is what science shows us.
  In Minnesota, we take special pride in the severity of our winters, 
but Minnesota winter temperatures have increased by 6 degrees since 
1970. More than our pride is at stake. Agriculture and forest pests 
that were once held in check by severe winter cold are now thriving. 
Summer temperatures are on a pace to make Minnesota as warm as Kansas 
by the end of the century. Some models suggest that changing climate 
and spreading pests could eliminate Minnesota's iconic evergreen 
forests by 2100.
  Urgent action is needed to limit further climate change. If we don't 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to near zero by 2060, the world will 
cross a dangerous warming threshold--a threshold that the United States 
and other nations have pledged to avoid.
  I am deeply worried about these threats, and so are our children, but 
I am also hopeful because I have seen how tapping into the abundant 
wind and sunshine is building a new energy economy that is clean, 
green, and full of opportunity.
  Here is just one example. Shortly after becoming a Senator, I visited 
the Vetter family farm near Mankato, MN, and saw firsthand how 
renewable energy can provide new sources of income for farmers. The 
Vetters raise hogs, but they also farm the sun through a 14-acre 
community solar garden. The Vetters inspired me to become a champion 
for the energy title in the Senate farm bill, which provides Federal 
support for rural renewable energy projects.
  Just 3 years ago, Minnesota wasn't much of a player in solar energy, 
despite the fact that we had nearly the same solar potential as 
Houston, TX. However, new State policy has led to strong growth and 
solar energy development. The State began a community solar garden 
program in 2013, and Minnesota now has enough solar energy to power 
nearly 120,000 homes. During the first quarter of 2018, Minnesota was 
fifth in the Nation for solar installations.
  Now Minnesota is a model, but the Southeastern United States and 
almost all of the western half of the country has as much or more 
sunshine than Minnesota and lots of opportunity.
  Minnesota is new to solar, but we have long been a national leader in 
wind energy. Today, nearly 20 percent of our electricity comes from 
wind turbines. Like solar, the fuel costs for an installed turbine are 
zero. So wind energy is sheltered from the ups and downs of fossil fuel 
prices. Wind energy is also a rural economic engine. A single 
industrial-sized turbine can bring a family farm $4,000 to $8,000 in 
lease revenue each year.
  My State is home to the two largest wind and solar installation 
companies in the country--Mortenson Energy in the Twin Cities and 
Blattner Energy in rural Avon. Together, they have installed renewable 
energy capacity across the country equivalent to 100 coal plants.
  Clean energy brings good jobs. For example, wind energy technician is 
one of the fastest growing jobs in the country, with an average salary 
of $54,000, and it doesn't require a 4-year college degree.
  Jobs in Minnesota's clean energy sector are growing twice as fast as 
jobs in other parts of our State's economy. Employers report they are 
having trouble finding the skilled workers they need to fill these 
jobs. To address this problem, I have introduced legislation to help 
employers partner with high schools and community colleges so students 
can gain the skills they need to get these jobs.
  Last year, renewable energy contributed 25 percent of the electricity 
generated in Minnesota. Nuclear power, which also does not release 
greenhouse gases, contributed an additional 23 percent. From a climate 
change perspective, Minnesota is already halfway to being a 100-percent 
clean energy State, and we are not slowing down. Xcel, our largest 
utility, is on track to deliver 60 percent renewable and 85 percent 
clean energy by 2030. Great River Energy, which serves many of our 
rural electric co-ops, is committed to 50 percent renewables by that 
same date. Why are they doing this? Well, it is not all about saving 
the planet. Wind energy has become the cheapest way to add new 
electricity to Minnesota's electric grid. Yes, Minnesota is windy, but 
so is every State in the middle of the country. And, as Senator 
Whitehouse described, most coastal States have tremendous wind power 
potential through offshore wind farms.
  This summer, the McKnight Foundation released a groundbreaking 
analysis of what decarbonizing Minnesota's economy would mean. If 
Minnesota continues to move away from fossil fuels and toward clean 
energy, we can achieve a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 
by 2050. That would mean an electric mix that includes at least 91 
percent clean energy. That would mean total energy bill savings of $600 
to $1,200 per Minnesota household each year. It also would

[[Page S6130]]

mean 20,000 more jobs in our State compared to a ``business as usual'' 
scenario, with continued reliance on fossil fuels.
  Given all of the upsides, it is disheartening that the President 
continues to do everything in his power to slow down the clean energy 
transition. He would rather take us backward than have America remain a 
world leader pushing forward. He is pulling the United States out of 
the Paris climate agreement. He is taking steps to roll back auto fuel 
efficiency standards and trampling on the rights of States that want to 
maintain rigorous targets. He has tried repeatedly to keep uneconomic 
and polluting coal plants open--a move that, if successful, would cost 
American taxpayers and electric bill payers billions of dollars a year.
  In a recent attack on clean energy, President Trump has proposed 
replacing the Clean Power Plan with an alternative that would actually 
increase greenhouse gas emissions and, by the administration's own 
calculation, cause up to 1,400 additional deaths per year due to air 
pollution. Just yesterday, the Trump administration proposed to weaken 
rules that limit the release of methane--a potent greenhouse gas.
  Instead, the Federal Government can and should partner with States to 
encourage the spread of clean energy. The Federal Government should 
help States lead and not hold them back.
  First, we should set national clean energy targets. These should be a 
floor, not a ceiling, setting States free to innovate and adopt the 
best way to meet energy emission reductions given their local 
resources, local economies, and local sensibilities.
  Second, the Federal targets should be technology neutral. The goal is 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In one place, this might mean wind 
power; in another, nuclear power. Some States have great hydropower 
resources, while others might choose to utilize carbon capture and 
storage upgrades to existing coal plants.
  Third, we should work with States to enhance the interstate 
transmission system. I have talked a lot about what Minnesota is doing 
on clean energy. States like California and Hawaii and many others are 
certainly also leading the way. With transmission, the Texas grid 
expansion provides a potential national model. That expansion is 
helping bring clean electricity from the windy western part of Texas to 
the large cities in the east.
  Fourth, the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission must properly 
account for greenhouse gas emissions when it approves projects. It 
should allow States to value their nuclear plants as zero-emission 
sources. As the original fleet of nuclear plants retires, it is 
imperative that they be replaced with non-emitting power sources.
  Last, the Federal government should expand support for cutting-edge 
energy research at our National Labs and at State universities. The 
Federal Government also needs to recognize that the discoveries in the 
lab only help if they are actually deployed. We must help States and 
utilities take risks on new, potentially game-changing technologies. To 
those ends, I recently introduced legislation to help fund both 
research and initial deployment of new energy storage technologies.
  We have everything to lose if we fail to meet the challenge of 
climate change. We owe our children and the next generation a better 
alternative.
  I again thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this issue and 
for inviting me to join him today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is a bit behind in terms of the 
schedule. I ask unanimous consent, as the ranking Democrat on the 
Senate Finance Committee--we will be voting on Mr. Rettig here 
shortly--that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes at the 
conclusion of my colleague Senator Bennet's remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, in recent weeks, President Trump has gone 
around the country touting the strength of the economy. He said:

       Our economy is the strongest it has ever been in the 
     history of our country, and you just have to look at the 
     numbers to know that.

  The numbers do tell us that the economy is strong and getting 
stronger, and that is a good thing, but they also tell us that the 
economy has been strengthening since 2010--after President Obama acted 
to save us from another Great Depression and when some Members of 
Congress wouldn't lift a finger to help him.
  During President Obama's term, even as the economic data showed more 
and more investment and more growth, the other side talked down the 
recovery because, even though it was good for America, it didn't help 
them win elections. As a candidate, this was Donald Trump's specialty. 
He was a master of this in September 2016--long into the recovery--when 
he said: ``This is the weakest so-called recovery since the Great 
Depression.'' The Great Depression wasn't a recovery; it was the Great 
Depression. We were coming out of the great recession.
  He even questioned the government's monthly jobs report, at one point 
calling it ``total fiction.''
  ``Nobody has jobs. . . . It is not a real economy. It is a phony set 
of numbers. They cooked the books,'' he said of the government's 
report. ``Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 percent 
or 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35. 
In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.'' He campaigned on that.
  Now that he is President, Donald Trump's attitude has changed. This 
month he said that we have the strongest economy in the history of our 
Nation. It turns out that he loves those jobs reports that he 
criticized so readily under President Obama:

       JUST OUT: 3.9% Unemployment. 4% is Broken! In the meantime, 
     WITCH HUNT!

  If you only read the President's twitter feed--which I don't 
recommend--you could be forgiven for believing that the economy was 
collapsing under President Obama but is now roaring back under his 
administration. As usual, the truth is not nearly as partisan.
  If we ignore the hyperbole and exaggeration and review the actual 
history, the trends are clear. The economy was shrinking and shedding 
jobs when President Obama took office. He stepped in and made difficult 
decisions, and soon after, the economy began growing, adding jobs and 
gaining strength. And it has continued under President Trump, I am 
pleased to say.
  Let's look at the record.
  Last week, President Trump celebrated the almost 4 million jobs 
created since the election. In the first year and a half of President 
Trump, the economy created an average of 189,000 jobs a month. That is 
good. Compare that to the last year and a half under President Obama 
when the economy created 208,000 jobs a month. Unfortunately, we have 
lost some ground since the Obama administration, but we are still 
making progress. This chart demonstrates that.
  This chart also demonstrates that despite President Trump's deficit-
busting tax cuts and higher spending, job growth has actually slowed 
under his administration. The same is true for wages. I don't take any 
pleasure in this, but, as you can see here, average hourly earnings 
grew at a rate of 1.3 percent during the course of President Obama's 
last 18 months; they grew by 1.1 percent during President Trump's first 
18 months. That growth has slowed.
  Last week, President Trump also said that we have more people working 
today than at any point ever in history. That is true, but it has been 
true since May of 2014. In fact, the private sector has added jobs for 
102 months straight--the longest streak on record, and 80 percent of 
that streak was during the Obama administration.
  As in other parts of his life, when it comes to jobs, President Trump 
is once again coasting on his inheritance.
  President Trump said:

       Economic growth last quarter was 4.2 percent, and as you 
     people know, it was headed down, big. And it was a low 
     number. A very low number. It would have been, in my opinion, 
     it would have been less than zero. It was heading to negative 
     numbers.

  First, the economy did grow by 4.2 percent last quarter, but it grew 
by the

[[Page S6131]]

same rate for several quarters in 2015 and 2016 under President Obama.
  There is not a single economist who thought we were ``heading to 
negative numbers'' at the end of the Obama administration. In fact, 
when asked, a surrogate for this administration couldn't name a single 
economist to back up the President's claim.
  Most recently, on Monday, President Trump tweeted:

       The GDP Rate (4.2%) is higher than the Unemployment Rate 
     (3.9%) for the first time in over 100 years!

  Even FOX News had to call him out on that one. They pointed out that 
since 1948, GDP growth has been higher than the unemployment rate 63 
different times. This is not the first time; it has happened 63 times.
  The one thing that actually has happened for the first time during 
the course of this administration is that it is the first time in 
American history that the unemployment rate is falling and our deficit 
is going up. That has never happened before. It is hard to do that. The 
level of irresponsibility required to have an outcome where your 
unemployment is falling and your deficit is rising is unheard of in 
American history.
  The Congressional Budget Office just announced that the government 
spent $895 billion more than it took in over the past 11 months. That 
is a 33-percent increase in our deficit from last year. It is a 53-
percent increase in our deficit since the last year of the Obama 
administration just 2 years ago. And by the way, we still have a month 
to go in this year. So the deficit has increased under this Republican 
President, this Republican Senate, this Republican House majority, by 
more than half since President Obama left office.
  By the way, and parenthetically, the last time unemployment was 3.9 
percent was the year 2000, when we had a projected surplus of $5.6 
trillion. That was at the end of the Clinton administration.
  This is all a far cry from candidate Donald Trump's promise to 
eliminate our debt over a period of 8 years or his promise to provide 
great healthcare for a fraction of the price, whereby everyone will be 
taken care of better than they are taken care of now, or his promise to 
build the greatest infrastructure on the planet Earth--the roads and 
railways and airports of tomorrow. I haven't seen any tweets about that 
lately.
  I will give him this: President Trump promised he would be the 
greatest jobs President God ever created. Do you know what? He has been 
the greatest jobs President God ever created since Barack Obama was 
President of the United States.
  I want to finish by suggesting that instead of trafficking in 
complete falsehoods and untruths and exaggerations about what he has 
saved us from and how phenomenally well he is doing while he is 
creating these enormous deficits as our economy grows, the American 
people would be a lot better served by a conversation about the much 
deeper challenges we face--for example, why wages have decoupled from 
productivity, why incomes have not kept pace with cost, why automation 
and global competition have put tremendous pressure on workers and 
wages and what we are going to do about it, why inequality continues to 
rise and economic mobility in the United States continues to fall below 
that of European countries. That is what we should be talking about. 
Ignoring these issues doesn't make them disappear.
  Reality is out there in States like Colorado and all across our 
country, and our lack of mobility and our extraordinary inequality is 
bearing down on us. Even if the President chooses to ignore it, for the 
sake of our children, we cannot.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, American taxpayers are facing an uncertain 
time. After rushing to pass an enormously complex, budget-busting tax 
bill late last year, Republicans in Congress have set the table for the 
upcoming tax season to be a time of serious confusion for the public. 
At the center of this sits the IRS, which is in the midst of trying to 
modernize its systems, effectively perform its tax collection 
functions, and implement this boondoggle of a tax law. Today the Senate 
considers a nominee to head the IRS. While I strongly disagree with 
most of the tax policy decisions that this administration has made, I 
am supporting this nominee because the IRS deserves to have dedicated 
leadership at the top.
  There is little debate over Mr. Rettig's qualifications for this 
position. By all accounts, he has extensive tax law experience and has 
worked closely with the IRS in advisory roles over the years. Perhaps, 
most importantly, he would ensure that the IRS has full-time leadership 
in place, which stands in stark contrast to how the administration has 
chosen to run the agency to date. Rather than putting an Acting 
Commissioner in place who would serve exclusively in that role, the 
administration chose instead to have a political appointee in the 
Department of Treasury split his time between his policy role in the 
Department and the critical role of leading the IRS. There is no doubt 
that this does a disservice to American taxpayers. It also raises 
questions about the political independence of the IRS.
  I appreciate that many Senators will be opposing this nomination 
because of the egregious decision made by the administration in July to 
end the reporting of so-called ``dark money'' donors to the IRS. In a 
time when Russia has been shown to use these types of organizations to 
funnel money as part of an effort to influence our elections, ending 
the reporting of donor information raises serious questions about who 
this administration is aiming to protect. I was proud to join a letter 
led by Senators Klobuchar and Wyden urging the Department of Treasury 
to reinstate the reporting requirements.
  At the same time, we have seen the impact that the lack of dedicated 
leadership and the disastrous budget cuts adopted over the years by 
Republicans has had at the IRS. Its website crashed on tax day, 
crippling the ability of millions of Americans to file their taxes on 
time. Rural Americans are struggling to get the help they need to file 
their taxes. It still needs to provide guidance to taxpayers on how the 
Republican tax law will impact them. Without a full-time leader in 
place, I worry that the IRS will be rudderless at the top. Ultimately, 
such an outcome would be unfair to hard-working Vermonters who just 
want to pay their taxes as quickly and easily as possible.
  As vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to 
fight for the funding the IRS needs to meet the many challenges it 
faces and repair the damage caused by years of budget neglect. I will 
also be supporting the nominee today, despite my unequivocal opposition 
to the IRS dark money decision, so that the agency has the leadership 
it needs as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is considering tonight the 
nomination of Charles Rettig to lead the Internal Revenue Service. 
Let's be clear. This is not a typical IRS Commissioner debate.
  Over the last several months, the Trump administration has weaponized 
the Tax Code to punish its political adversaries and benefit shadowy, 
far-right groups that seek to buy American elections. Two months ago, 
just hours after Maria Butina was outed as an alleged Russian spy who 
sought to influence our elections, the Trump administration announced a 
new rule, opening the floodgates to more dark money and foreign money 
in American politics. Dark money groups used to be required to disclose 
their donors to the IRS. With this new Trump rule, they will not be 
required to disclose at all.
  To my colleagues, here is what this all means. Over the next 2 
months, while political ads flood the airwaves, millions of Americans 
are going to wonder how much of this stuff is paid for by law-breaking 
foreigners and special interests. Because of the new rule, the Internal 
Revenue Service and law enforcement are going to be in the dark as 
well. There are a few reasons this new rule is unjustifiable and 
undemocratic.
  First, it had no debate in the Finance Committee, where we have 
jurisdiction over the Tax Code. It had no debate on the Senate floor. I 
do recall my Republican colleagues bemoaning what they considered to be 
anti-conservative political interference by the Internal Revenue 
Service even when none was found. Now, with a Republican administration 
in office, they are changing

[[Page S6132]]

the tax rules to allow for more political interference by creative 
outside groups and foreigners.
  Second, the timing of this announcement could not have more clearly 
underscored the rotten corruption at the heart of this policy. The new 
dark money rule was announced on a Monday night--the same day it was 
revealed that Maria Butina had been indicted for using the National 
Rifle Association as a conduit to influence our democracy with personal 
and financial ties. Another administration, in seeing that kind of news 
come down, might have said: Hey, we ought to hold off on making drastic 
changes. It might have said: Let's put a little more space between the 
indictment of an alleged Russian spy and the rollout of our dark money 
rule that would make the spy's job even easier--not this Trump 
administration. It was undeterred. It, obviously, decided it could not 
wait to get this new rule on the books to make it easier for foreign 
actors and special interests to hide in the shadows while their dollars 
influence our elections.
  The tax rules and election laws in America, with respect to who has 
to disclose political spending, are already badly broken, especially 
after Citizens United. Now the administration is taking an enormous 
problem and making it much worse. The Trump dark money rule is only 
going to mean that individual Americans will have even less faith that 
they will be in control of our democracy. This takes us even further 
from the true meaning of one person, one vote. It puts even more power 
and more influence in the hands of the special interests.
  The fact is, the arguments for this change do not add up. I have 
heard members of the Trump administration say, including the Treasury 
Secretary, that none of this information was public before, so there is 
no reason to collect it; that there is just no big deal here.
  To my colleagues, the overwhelming majority of Americans want more 
disclosure, not less. The administration, in effect, admits it was not 
using the information political donors used to have to turn over. It 
sounds to me like the Trump argument for this dark money rule goes 
pretty much like this: We were not going to enforce the campaign 
spending laws anyway, so we decided not to bother collecting the 
special interest information at all.
  That is going to be cold comfort to the millions of Americans who are 
going to get clobbered by enormously funded political ads for the next 
2 months before our election.
  The bottom line is, the Trump dark money rule is anti-law 
enforcement, anti-democratic, and anti-disclosure. It puts a blindfold 
on law enforcement at the exact moment Congress ought to be coming up 
with new approaches to shed more sunlight on political spending and 
defend American democracy from foreign influence.
  The Finance Committee's vote on Mr. Rettig's nomination was, 
coincidentally, scheduled to take place during the same week the rule 
came down. Obviously, this issue was a focal point in the discussion. I 
raised the issue during the markup. Mr. Rettig had an opportunity to 
tell the committee he would try to fix it. He did not. He wouldn't even 
acknowledge the serious problem here for the cause of transparency and 
openness in our government.
  In my view, this rule ought to be put up to the same standard of 
scrutiny the majority has applied to several other rules that were put 
in place by the previous administration. The Senate ought to use the 
powers granted to it by the Congressional Review Act, and it ought to 
vote on whether this rule should stand. Yet now the Trump 
administration is taking unprecedented steps to hide its dark money 
policy from that kind of scrutiny. Trump officials are keeping their 
rule off the official books for as long as they can to prevent the 
Senate from holding their dark money rule to the same standard that had 
been applied to the Obama administration.
  When it publishes the rule in the Federal Register or it confirms 
that it will not be published there but will be published elsewhere, 
the rule becomes eligible for a challenge under the Congressional 
Review Act. So far, the Trump administration hasn't taken either step, 
even though I asked for a response 3 weeks ago. As a result, in the 
Senate, we have been unable to get a straight answer as to when it is 
coming or whether it plans to publish the congressional review issue at 
all. It looks to me like the administration has a policy on its hands 
that it knows is corrupt, that it knows is undemocratic, so it is 
playing hide the ball. The more the public hears about the dark money 
rule, the less it likes it, and we are going to keep talking about it.
  I close with one last point, in that there is a lot about the Trump 
tax policy to be concerned about this evening. Senator Menendez talked 
about how blue States, like Oregon, California, New Jersey, and others, 
were hit with a gut punch. Capping the State and local tax deductions 
to target people in those States reveals the rotten core of the Trump 
tax policy. Tonight, as we consider the Rettig nomination, I don't know 
of anything more corrupt in front of this body than to make it even 
harder for the American people to know where dark money--foreign 
money--is coming from.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Rettig 
nomination. He was asked to acknowledge that this is a serious problem. 
He wouldn't go there. He was asked to describe what he would do to 
correct the problem. He wouldn't go there. This is as corrupt as 
anything I know of before the U.S. Senate, and I will be working with 
my colleagues to fix this dark money crisis and undo the damage the 
Trump tax law has brought on, and I will be opposing the Rettig 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, thank you so much to my colleague from 
Oregon for his remarks on taking on the systematic corruption of dark 
money as it relates to this nomination.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair 
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Charles P. Rettig, of California, to be Commissioner of 
     Internal Revenue for the term expiring November 12, 2022.
         Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, John Boozman, Shelley Moore 
           Capito, Johnny Isakson, David Perdue, Roger F. Wicker, 
           John Hoeven, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Orrin G. Hatch, 
           Roy Blunt, John Barrasso, Deb Fischer, Rob Portman, 
           Thom Tillis, Tom Cotton.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Charles P. Rettig, of California, to be Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue for the term expiring November 12, 2022, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Ex.]

                                YEAS--63

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Scott
     Shaheen

[[Page S6133]]


     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--34

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Isakson
     Nelson
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 
34.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Rettig Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all post-cloture 
time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Rettig 
nomination?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. 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 assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Ex.]

                                YEAS--64

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--33

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Burr
     Isakson
     Nelson
  The nomination was confirmed
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon table, and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________