[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3101-3106]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Ryan Zinke, of Montana, to be 
Secretary of the Interior.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
nomination of Congressman Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior.
  The Secretary of the Interior is one of the most important jobs in 
the Federal Government and even more so for people in the West. I know 
the Presiding Officer would agree with that.
  The Department of the Interior has an incredibly broad portfolio. It 
is responsible for managing our Nation's public lands, our national 
parks, our national wildlife refuges, and overseeing mineral and energy 
development on our public lands and in our Federal waters offshore, 
making sure that the taxpayers of the United States get a fair deal for 
the resources that the public--the public--actually owns. The 
responsibilities of the Department of the Interior also include 
ensuring that tribal trust responsibilities are met, as well as 
attending to our insular affairs. The Secretary of the Interior also 
manages a large part of water resources in Western States--again, which 
I know the Presiding Officer knows so well because there are so many 
issues related to drinking water and hydroelectric facilities that 
affect millions of our citizens.
  So it is a far-reaching and diverse portfolio, and it requires the 
Secretary to take into account not only the demands of the extraction 
industry--the oil, gas, coal, and hard rock mining companies--the 
Secretary, above all, must protect the public's interests.
  I think the public could probably best understand this by knowing 
what happened in the Gulf of Mexico and the implosion that happened 
with the Deepwater Horizon well. Here, the Department of the Interior 
and minerals management resource agencies, in my opinion, should have 
been doing a better job of protecting the public and protecting that 
vital resource.
  The conclusion of hearings after this fact found that there were many 
recommendations to clean up and streamline the minerals management 
agency so that it was not catering to the interests of the oil and gas 
industry, but making sure that it adheres to what is the public 
interest. Now all that has been made famous in a movie, which many of 
the public I think should go to see. Taking shortcuts when it comes to 
extraction of mineral resources is not a good idea, and having an 
Interior Secretary who makes sure we manage these resources well is 
critical to our Nation.
  Also, the outdoor recreation industry, in and of itself, in my 
opinion--and I am sure in the opinion of many others here who 
understand it--has become a juggernaut. I will talk about that in a 
little bit. It is an economy in and of itself. It is worth preserving. 
It is worth fighting for. It is a source of

[[Page 3102]]

tax revenue, income, jobs, and, most importantly, a quality of life 
that so many Americans hold dear. I have been so touched by the letters 
I have gotten from veterans, who have said to me on their returning 
back from Iraq and Afghanistan that having the wonders of the outdoors 
as a place for peace and sanctuary has been so critical to them. They 
have argued in support of important programs like the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, and others, to make sure that our public lands are 
there for them to enjoy and for their children to enjoy in the future.
  So, in short, the Secretary must balance the short-term demands of 
developing resources on these public lands against the need to protect 
the environment and sensitive areas and preserve that natural heritage, 
as I said, for future generations. It is very important that we have a 
Secretary who understands what our Nation's leading stewardship 
responsibilities are, understands what those special places are, like 
the Grand Canyon, and other places such as Mount Rainier, and makes 
sure they are protected.
  I had hoped to be able to support Congressman Zinke's nomination 
based on his assurances that he would manage the Department of the 
Interior as a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. However, I cannot ignore the 
Trump administration's plans for our public lands and resources, and I 
cannot ignore Congressman Zinke's commitment during our committee 
hearings to work to implement President-Elect Trump's energy 
independence policy, as well as a variety of positions on returning 
Federal land, taking public lands off the protection that they deserve 
today. These are very important public policy issues, and I note that 
President Trump has said to many people: ``My Cabinet is free to say 
whatever they want.'' So the fact that these important policies are 
going to be implemented that may erode what has been decades of policy 
for us in managing our public resources is quite concerning to me.
  What exactly is the Trump administration's plan? Clearly, the Trump 
administration intends to pursue an aggressive agenda when it comes to 
mining and drilling on our public lands and waters. The President and 
his senior advisers have made clear their intention to undo what are 
reasonable protections put in place in environmentally sensitive areas. 
The administration will renew its efforts to reverse protections of 
important onshore and offshore areas. Based on energy plans posted on 
the White House website immediately after the President's inauguration, 
the President seems to be committed to simply opening up as much 
Federal land as possible to coal mining and energy development.
  The administration has said it will use money from drilling and 
mining on all our public lands and waters to pay for a multibillion-
dollar infrastructure package. My constituents want to know where they 
draw the line. Where does that stop?
  The administration has already suspended rules ensuring polluters on 
our public lands don't have to pay their fair share. The President has 
signed into law a measure gutting the Obama administration rule that 
would have prevented coal companies from dumping toxic chemicals into 
our Nation's rivers and streams. So it is clear to me that the new 
administration will do everything it can to reverse the responsible 
management of our public land and instead pursue an aggressive energy 
development policy without regard to the environmental and public 
health consequences.
  The bedrock principle, I believe, is that polluters should pay and 
they should clean up their messes on public lands. We may all have a 
different opinion here about how much public land should be developed, 
but I think everybody should be in agreement that polluters should pay, 
and they should leave our public land in a pristine nature.
  It is equally clear that the new administration will be encouraged in 
this effort by the majorities in the House and the Senate by some of 
the legislation we have already seen, such as enabling coal companies 
to dump their mining waste into streams and impacting State drinking 
water, enabling oil companies to waste the public's natural resource 
without paying royalties on the gas they waste--that is costing 
taxpayers money--and reports that the President intends to issue an 
Executive order to overturn the current moratorium prohibiting new coal 
leases on Federal land. That is an issue about getting a fair deal for 
the taxpayer. The taxpayer is impacted by this coal extraction. Coal 
companies, instead of doing the job it takes to extract coal without an 
impact on the public, are taking Federal resources and making lots of 
money without responsibility to the taxpayer.
  The previous Secretary, Secretary Jewell, basically said, for the 
first time in many years, that they would look at what the industry was 
paying as far as coal royalties. That process is underway, and we think 
it should be carried out. We think the taxpayer deserves a fair deal.
  Unfortunately, I am not convinced that Congressman Zinke will be 
willing or able to moderate the Trump administration's extreme views on 
exploiting our public lands, and I am not sure he will be willing or 
able to stand up to the President to protect the public interest and 
ensure that our public lands are managed and protected for the benefit 
of all Americans--not just the oil, gas, and mining companies and their 
commercial interests.
  The Secretary's principal job is to be a guardian, a steward of our 
public lands. To me, stewardship is so important. So many of my 
colleagues come to the floor and act like they are managing this 
resource for their lifetime and their generation. Stewardship is about 
managing these resources for future generations as well. If our past 
ancestors had been so callus with these Federal resources, where would 
we be today? It is so important that we not look at these Federal lands 
so narrowly as a source of natural resources that someone has in their 
particular State or interest but also to make sure that stewardship 
protects these resources for future generations as well. With that in 
mind, I have seen several laws and regulations under attack that are 
fundamental to keeping that mission of stewardship at the Department of 
the Interior, including the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act, the Clean Air Act, the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act, and the Antiquities Act.
  While Congressman Zinke said he would oppose the transfer of Federal 
lands to the States, which I appreciate, at the same time, he has 
indicated he is willing to consider transferring away management of 
certain Federal lands to the States.
  What does that mean? For example, you could have a monument or a 
designation of Federal land--it could be even Mount Rainier or some 
beautiful place in the Pacific Northwest--consequently transferred back 
to the State and that particular State--it wouldn't happen in 
Washington but might happen in some other State--decides to start 
managing that land and extracting resources. You might think that 
couldn't possibly happen. I have news for you. That is the debate du 
jour. This is exactly--exactly--the debate today.
  Last Congress, Congressman Zinke cosponsored and voted for a bill to 
transfer to the States management of red snapper fisheries in Federal 
waters. He supports transferring Federal management responsibilities to 
the States, and it clearly undercuts the commitment to Federal 
resources.
  We also know he has previously supported efforts to restrict use of 
the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments. In fact, he 
appears open to efforts to weaken or repeal certain recently designated 
national monuments. He has indicated one of his first priorities, upon 
confirmation, will be to visit Utah to consider a Republican proposal 
to rescind the recently designated Bears Ears National Monument. This 
is despite the strong support of many across the Nation and in Utah, as 
well as tribal support from the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, 
representing the five affected tribes in the region.
  As somebody who enjoys the outdoors, I can state how important it is

[[Page 3103]]

to be able to go and recreate. I have not been to Bears Ears, but I 
have heard incredible stories from climbers and those interested in 
seeing this unique terrain that it is a very special place.
  As we enter this debate, the issue of the Bears Ears National 
Monument and whether they are going to roll back Federal land 
protection will be at the center of this discussion. Created by 
President Obama, Bears Ears encompasses 1.3 million acres of beautiful 
desert hills, mesas, sandstone canyons, spiritually significant lands 
to local tribes, and some of the best crack climbing in the world. The 
climbing community loves to recreate there.
  The conservation community and tribes have fought for many years for 
this designation. If and when he is confirmed, Congressman Zinke will 
be under intense pressure from some quarters to try to undo this 
designation. In fact, heated debate on this subject boiled over just a 
week ago as the Outdoor Retailer show decided to leave Salt Lake City, 
after two decades and contributing at least $40 million to the economy 
in various shows that they had each year there, because of Utah's 
stated desire and the congressional delegation's interest in basically 
claiming Federal lands and selling them off for extraction from the oil 
and gas industry.
  I was so proud of retailers, such as REI in my State or others such 
as Patagonia, Black Diamond, Outdoor Research and others, basically put 
their money where their mouth is. They decided that if a State was 
going to attack the very economy that was so important to them in jobs 
and recreation, that they were going to do something about moving their 
impacted industry somewhere else.
  I would like to read what the Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had 
to say about this issue.
  ``In the same week Utah announced that it had topped $8.17 billion in 
annual economic benefit from tourism, the $40 million Outdoor Retailer 
show announced it was leaving.
  ``Surely we can take a half-percent hit, right?
  ``No. The exit of Outdoor Retailer is so much more than just losing 
the State's largest convention. There will be hospitality jobs lost, 
and hotel rooms from Sandy to Ogden vacant for those two weeks a year. 
We're now building a 900-room downtown convention hotel--with public 
bonding authority--largely on spec. There is now no convention 
currently on Salt Lake City's docket that demands it.
  ``The reason Outdoor Retailer is leaving--their rejection of Utah's 
political leaders' values as shown in the stubborn and pointless fight 
against a Bears Ears National Monument--should make this moment a 
turning point.
  ``In the 1960s, Utah found itself at a confluence. One flow was fed 
by a collection of downtown Chamber of Commerce types who hatched a 
longshot bid to obtain the 1972 Winter Olympics. They knew they 
wouldn't win, but they saw it as a chance to sell Utah's ``Greatest 
Snow on Earth.'' It was the first time Utah took its outdoor tourism 
message to the world, and it was well received.
  ``The other flow came from a fundamental change in the American 
people, who were waking up to the natural world and the treasures in 
their own presence. In Utah, there was recognition that we held those 
treasures. A national park was created in Canyonlands, and national 
monuments in Arches, Capitol Reef were elevated to national parks. 
Utahns of all creed and color united in their pride of our shared 
national icons.''
  I am sure the Presiding Officer also agrees with the concept, being 
from the home of the Grand Canyon. Continuing to read from the 
editorial:
  ``Where once we were a peculiar backwater, we became known the world 
over. Were it not for pioneering efforts, there would be no ski 
industry. No Olympics. No Sundance Film Festival. No Flat Tire 
Festival. No steady stream of tour buses climbing to Bryce Canyon. No 
$8.17 billion per year.
  ``Losing Outdoor Retailer over Bears Ears represents a reversal of a 
half century of progress in inviting the world to appreciate Utah.''
  ``The seeds of that failure were shown in the rejection . . . of the 
unprecedented unity of five Indian nations coming together to protect 
their ancestral homeland. Instead of recognizing the significance, our 
leaders emboldened the local pioneer descendants who were claiming 
their 150 years of ranching took precedent over centuries of Indian 
presence in Bears Ears. The tribes had no choice but to go to the 
president.
  ``That blindness that can be sourced to Utah's one-party political 
system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with their 
constituents. Dismantling the Bears Ears was a slam dunk in the Utah 
Legislature last week, but it's an issue on which every poll has shown 
Utahns divided, a division encouraged by the false narrative that the 
monument was a trade-off between fat energy jobs and low-paying tourist 
jobs.
  ``The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there is no 
bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The presidential 
proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries and shared management 
Representative Bishop pursued with his Public Lands Initiative. In that 
context, Utah political leaders' vehemence looks to much of the nation 
like white rejection of the legitimacy of a black president listening 
to Native Americans.''
  ``The damage may not be over. What does Utah's sports equipment 
industry have to look forward to? What are Ogden-based companies 
supposed to do when their congressman refuses to acknowledge that 
fossil fuel consumption reduces the snowpack upon which their products 
glide?
  ``Are we receding to the backwaters where our superiority is apparent 
only to ourselves? Are we bent on separating Americans from their 
national identity instead of inviting them to share it?
  ``This isn't about $40 million. It's about who we are and where we 
are headed. To get there, we need leaders with a better appreciation of 
the magnificent gifts God has given everyone, not just Utahns.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Salt-Lake Tribune, Feb. 20, 2017]

 Editorial: The World Is Not so Welcome Now, as Outdoor Retailer Exit 
                                 Shows

       In the same week Utah announced that it had topped $8.17 
     billion in annual economic benefit from tourism, the $40 
     million Outdoor Retailer show announced it was leaving.
       Surely we can take a half-percent hit, right?
       No. The exit of Outdoor Retailer is so much more than just 
     losing the state's largest convention. There will be 
     hospitality jobs lost, and hotel rooms from Sandy to Ogden 
     vacant for those two weeks a year. We're now building a 900-
     room downtown convention hotel--with public bonding 
     authority--largely on spec. There is now no convention 
     currently on Salt Lake City's docket that demands it.
       The reason Outdoor Retailer is leaving--their rejection of 
     Utah's political leaders' values as shown in the stubborn and 
     pointless fight against a Bears Ears National Monument--
     should make this moment a turning point.
       In the 1960s, Utah found itself at a confluence. One flow 
     was fed by a collection of downtown Chamber of Commerce types 
     who hatched a longshot bid to obtain the 1972 Winter 
     Olympics. They knew they wouldn't win, but they saw it as a 
     chance to sell Utah's ``Greatest Snow on Earth.'' It was the 
     first time Utah took its outdoor tourism message to the 
     world, and it was well received.
       The other flow came from a fundamental change in the 
     American people, who were waking up to the natural world and 
     the treasures in their own presence. In Utah, there was 
     recognition that we held those treasures. A national park was 
     created in Canyonlands, and national monuments in Arches and 
     Capitol Reef were elevated to national parks. Utahns of all 
     creed and color united in their pride over our shared 
     national icons.
       Where once we were a peculiar backwater, we became known 
     the world over. Were it not for those pioneering efforts, 
     there would be no ski industry. No Olympics. No Sundance Film 
     Festival. No Fat Tire Festival. No steady stream of tour 
     buses climbing to Bryce Canyon. No $8.17 billion per year.

[[Page 3104]]

       Losing Outdoor Retailer over Bears Ears represents a 
     reversal of a half century of progress in inviting the world 
     to appreciate Utah. We could be Hawaii, and instead our 
     leaders want us to be Oklahoma. Gov. Gary Herbert, who has 
     made economic development his reason for living, couldn't get 
     a very lucrative 20-year visitor to keep coming.
       The seeds of that failure were sown in the rejection--first 
     by Rep. Rob Bishop and later by the governor and the 
     Legislature--of the unprecedented unity of five Indian 
     nations coming together to protect their ancestral homeland. 
     Instead of recognizing the significance, our leaders 
     emboldened the local pioneer descendants, who were claiming 
     their 150 years of ranching took precedent over centuries of 
     Indian presence in the Bears Ears. The tribes had no choice 
     but to go to the president.
       That blindness can be sourced to Utah's one-party political 
     system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with 
     their constituents. Dismantling the Bears Ears was a slam 
     dunk in the Utah Legislature last week, but it's an issue on 
     which every poll has shown Utahns divided, a division 
     encouraged by the false narrative that the monument was a 
     trade-off between fat energy jobs and low-paying tourist 
     jobs.
       The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there 
     is no bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The 
     presidential proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries 
     and shared management Bishop pursued with his Public Lands 
     Initiative. In that context, Utah political leaders' 
     vehemence looks to much of the nation like white rejection of 
     the legitimacy of a black president listening to Native 
     Americans.
       The damage may not be over. What does Utah's sports-
     equipment industry have to look forward to? What are Ogden-
     based companies supposed to do when their congressman--
     Bishop--refuses to acknowledge that fossil-fuel consumption 
     reduces the snowpack upon which their products glide?
       Are we receding to the backwaters where our superiority is 
     apparent only to ourselves? Are we bent on separating 
     Americans from their national identity instead of inviting 
     them to share it?
       This isn't about $40 million. It's about who we are and 
     where we are headed. To get there, we need leaders with a 
     better appreciation of the magnificent gifts God has given 
     everyone, not just Utahns.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think that editorial puts this debate 
squarely in front of my colleagues. We have a nominee who has been all 
over the map as it relates to public lands, and, certainly, he has been 
on record that he will implement the President's strategy. I know he 
plans to visit this area, and I am so concerned that it will be the 
first of many areas in which people run over the larger public and 
national interests in order to preserve special places just for 
immediate extraction when, in reality, the jobs from the outdoor 
economy are just as important and, if you add up numbers, may be more 
important economically in both the near term and the long term.
  I should also note that those of us in Washington would gladly 
welcome the outdoor retailers with open arms. I am sure they will 
consider many different places, but we understand that protecting our 
most treasured places not only preserves them for this generation but 
for future generations, and it helps drive an economy.
  In Utah, outdoor recreation is responsible for $12 billion in 
consumer spending--more than twice the value of oil and gas produced in 
that State. If we are talking about top dog economics, the outdoor 
industry wins. In Washington State, the outdoor economy supports 
227,000 direct-paying jobs and wages of $7.1 billion. Nationwide, it is 
6.1 million jobs and $646 billion in revenues from outdoor recreation, 
so this is a very valued part of the U.S. economy. It is also a very 
valued part of the American spirit.
  Not only do the Bears Ears National Monument and others like it 
benefit county, State, and Federal coffers, but they also offer access 
to our shared heritage. As I said, it is that spiritual connection to 
nature that is so valuable to all of us, but I hold so dear that our 
veterans cherish it so much too. They deserve the relief of being able 
to go to our greatest and beautiful places and have some solace.
  A second major responsibility of the Secretary is to manage the 
mineral resources that are on public lands and waters. One of the 
fundamental principles of the public resource management is that the 
American people should receive a fair market value for the energy and 
minerals that are extracted from our public lands. These resources are 
owned by every American.
  I think, sometimes, people get confused that these are the rights of 
these industries, that they own them. We have allowed that extraction 
and the leasing of that extraction, but we need to make sure that the 
taxpayers' interests and the costs of impact are well represented and 
that extraction is done in an efficient manner--that it protects the 
resources for the future, that it cleans up its mess, and that 
polluters pay.
  An important principle is that our public lands be managed so that 
their use will not permanently harm the land or the environment and 
that, in allowing companies to mine on public land, they must minimize 
the harm they do, clean up the messes they make, and repair and pay for 
the damage. ``Polluter pays'' should be a basic principle.
  The Secretary of the Interior must be committed to preserving and 
enforcing those important principles and to making sure that the 
taxpayers get a fair deal. The previous Secretary, as I said--Secretary 
Jewell--took important steps to advance those principles. On her watch, 
the Department issued its new stream protection rule, its methane 
venting and flaring rule, its mineral valuation rule, and the 
comprehensive examination of its coal leasing program.
  Most of these initiatives involve updating existing policies that 
have been in place for 20 or 30 years. That is just another way of 
saying that whether the taxpayer is getting a fair deal by allowing 
these companies to mine these Federal resources has not really been 
evaluated for 20 or 30 years, so I am sure my colleagues could 
understand that that kind of updating should take place. During these 
three intervening decades, technology has improved and science has 
advanced, and we need to make sure technology recognizes that, when 
pollution happens, it needs to be cleaned up.
  Attacks on Secretary Jewell's public health and taxpayer initiatives 
are already underway, and I am concerned that Congressman Zinke will 
not stand up to make sure that the policies of ``polluter pays'' are 
followed and that the good work that has already been established is 
continued. At his confirmation hearing, Congressman Zinke stated that 
the war on coal is real and that he supports lifting the coal leasing 
moratorium. This is completely contrary to the rational view of energy 
market dynamics, and it is at odds with the energy policies our 
constituents expect.
  While Federal coal leasing is an issue of national concern, it is 
also critically important in my State. They want to make sure that 
taxpayers get a fair deal for the leasing of that land. As people have 
discussed here on the floor, the advent of natural gas and its cheap 
value has done more to drive down the use of coal than any of this 
discussion about whether taxpayers are getting a fair deal.
  Finally, the Secretary of the Interior must be committed to upholding 
our trust and treaty obligations for our country's 567 federally 
recognized tribes. That Secretary must be committed to recognizing 
tribal sovereignty and self-determination, protecting tribal lands and 
waters and mineral resources, and supporting adequate resources for 
tribal education, social services, and infrastructure.
  Congressman Zinke has been a strong advocate of the Crow Tribes' coal 
resource in his home State; and while I respect his responsibility to 
his district, he will be required as Secretary of the Interior to have 
a much different position in representing all tribes across the United 
States.
  I know that some of my colleagues think that one can be expedient on 
any of these issues whether it is on the Antiquities Act or on coal 
leasing or on making sure that we live up to tribal sovereignty. In 
reality, it takes very little to sign an Executive order; it takes a 
lot to overrule the law of the land. Many of these issues will end up 
in court, and many of them will be battled for several years. I would 
suggest

[[Page 3105]]

to my colleagues that we find a common interest in preserving our 
stewardship, in preserving our natural resources, and in continuing to 
develop this kind of economy moving forward.
  I am not convinced that Congressman Zinke is going to show the 
leadership on these resources that is necessary, given his very 
different views on public lands as a Congressman--on all sides of the 
issue. We need someone who is going to stand up, just like those in 
Utah did, and say that the outdoor economy is worth it. The designation 
of public lands, as done by the President of the United States, should 
be preserved, and we should continue to fight for something that is 
providing so many jobs and such a great connection for so many 
Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                    President's Address to Congress

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tonight, President Trump will address a 
joint session of Congress for the very first time. This, of course, 
will be his first opportunity as President to talk about his agenda and 
his vision for the Nation with the American people, who will be 
listening. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
  He will, undoubtedly, talk about the promises he made during the 
campaign and how he is working to deliver on them for the American 
people. I know the cornerstone of that vision for America is that of 
reviving our economy and boosting job growth.
  Fortunately, he has already taken a few steps--through Executive 
action--in that direction, for which I am grateful. He has also 
nominated top-notch financial and economic advisers to look at our 
archaic Tax Code and to review our trade agreements so as to get our 
country back on track. He has begun to trim the fat of our bureaucracy, 
and he continues to push for measures that keep the government from 
interfering unnecessarily in the lives of American families.
  Congress has also played an important role. Earlier this month, we 
passed the first of several resolutions of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act--one, to roll back the erosion of Second 
Amendment rights and another to repeal a job-killing rule that targeted 
our energy providers. There were others as well.
  These rules have one characteristic in common, which is that all of 
these rules that we are rolling back through congressional resolutions 
of disapproval were put in place under the Obama administration. They 
frequently represent overreach in executive authority or in, certainly, 
what is prudent when it comes to regulation. There is such a thing as 
prudent regulation and overregulation, and I think what we saw is 
regulatory overreach under the Obama administration.
  We finally have a President in the White House who will sign these 
bills into law that we pass here. I am glad the President is delivering 
on his promise to protect American jobs and to grow our economy, and he 
is willing to work with Congress to do just that.
  Another area in which Congress and the administration are working 
together is in repealing and replacing ObamaCare. ObamaCare is, 
perhaps, President Obama's signature legacy. His healthcare law, by all 
accounts, is completely unsustainable and is, essentially, creating a 
real crisis for the people who happen to be on those exchanges.
  Texas families cannot afford these high monthly premiums or the sky-
high deductibles that so often go along with them. In fact, here is an 
interesting statistic. In Texas, if you have a gross income of $24,000 
a year, you could well end up spending 30 percent of your gross income 
on healthcare costs. That certainly doesn't sound affordable, which was 
the promise of ObamaCare.
  I look forward to working with our colleagues to deliver on the 
promise we made to the American people to repeal ObamaCare and put in 
its place a healthcare law that actually works for people, not against 
them--one that provides them with more choices and fewer mandates; if 
they like their doctors, they can keep their doctors; if they like 
their plans, they can keep their plans; and, yes, they can even save 
money. All of this was promised under ObamaCare, but none of it has 
proven to be true.
  We do know some of the basic principles of that replacement for 
ObamaCare--that of moving healthcare decisions, for example, away from 
Washington to where they belong--with patients, their families, and 
their doctors. Actually, I think this is sort of the healthcare 
counterpart of what we did with the Every Student Succeeds Act, which 
was the follow-on to No Child Left Behind in moving more of the 
decision-making out of Washington and back to the States--back to the 
people most intimately affected and the people most interested in the 
results.
  We also believe in giving patients the right tools they can use, like 
health savings accounts, to make their healthcare more portable and 
more affordable; in breaking down barriers that restrict choice and 
prevent Americans from picking the insurance plans that are best for 
them and their families; and, finally, in empowering small businesses 
to provide employees with the same kind of affordable health coverage 
that meets their needs. Association health plans is, perhaps, one of 
the most commonly recognized means of doing that.
  I am glad that we finally have a President in office who will work 
with us and not against us when it comes to repealing and replacing 
ObamaCare and in giving the American people more choices at a price 
they can afford when it comes to their health care.
  For our economy to grow, we have to have a stable and safe country, 
though, where our people can flourish. That brings me to President 
Trump's latest promise to restore national security as the number one 
priority in our budgeting process. He has already nominated and we have 
confirmed two incredibly strong leaders to key posts in his national 
security Cabinet. That would be Defense Secretary Mattis and Homeland 
Security Secretary Kelly. I am confident that these men will do a 
stand-up job. America is lucky to have them continuing to serve our 
Nation in these new positions, and I am grateful to them for their 
service. The safety of our communities and the safety of our country 
and world peace is our chief job.
  As Ronald Reagan demonstrated, the best way to keep the world 
peaceful is for America to remain strong because when America retreats 
from the world stage, when America no longer leads or when we underfund 
our national security requirements, all it does is encourages the 
bullies and the tyrants and the thugs around the world to fill the gap. 
That is what we have seen time and time again, ranging from Vladimir 
Putin in Russia--the best message we can send to Vladimir Putin is not 
necessarily additional Russian sanctions, which I would vote in favor 
of, but to quit the reversing of our spending on national security 
priorities. That is something he understands--strength. That is 
something he will respect. He does not respect weakness. In fact, it is 
an enticement to him to dangerous activities, as we have seen not only 
in Crimea and Ukraine but also now in Syria and the Greater Middle 
East.
  I have to say that the truth is, since the Budget Control Act of 2011 
and the sequestration process that came along with that, we haven't 
made national security our No. 1 priority--the priority it should be. I 
hope, working together with our colleagues and the administration, we 
can fix that because there are a lot of things the Federal Government 
funds that are simply things that we would like to do but are not 
absolutely essential to our existence, our prosperity, and our welfare, 
such as national security.
  I think President Trump has demonstrated that he understands what the 
priorities should be, and I know he will keep the goal of national 
security at the forefront. We ought to do everything we can, working 
together with this administration, to make that a success.
  I look forward to hearing the President talk about some of his 
accomplishments in the 5 short weeks since he has been in office. You 
look at the

[[Page 3106]]

stock market, for example, at historic highs. I think there is a lot of 
anticipation, a growing confidence not only in our economy but that 
America is now back in a leadership role and that the whole world will 
end up benefiting--most importantly, the American people.
  I am eager to learn about how Congress can continue to partner with 
our new President to make his administration a success, so that America 
can remain a success, and to make the rest of his campaign promises a 
reality.


                            Order for Recess

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12 
noon until 2:15 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________