[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.
____________________