[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3328-3344]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of James Richard Perry, of 
Texas, to be Secretary of Energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will speak briefly, as I know the 
distinguished senior Senator from Alaska is waiting to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            CALLING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL

  Mr. LEAHY. Every day we learn more about the troubling connections 
between the Russian Government and both President Trump's 
administration and his campaign, but last night kind of topped 
everything--a revelation that Attorney General Sessions met with 
Russian officials during the height of the Presidential campaign, which 
raises a new level of alarm.
  One of the reasons is, we now know the Attorney General, under oath, 
misled the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to my direct question 
about his contacts with Russian officials. I asked then-Senator 
Sessions if he had been in contact with anyone connected to any part of 
the Russian Government about the 2016 election. His answer was 
unequivocal. He said no. He provided a similarly misleading response to 
Senator Franken, saying that he was ``not aware'' of any connections 
between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.
  Especially those of us who are lawyers, and who have had a chance to 
serve as attorney general or as prosecutors in our States, know it is 
an egregious breach of public trust that Attorney General Sessions has 
not recused himself from this investigation. I think everybody would 
agree he has to recuse himself. Of course, as this goes on, the 
question now arises: Has he perjured himself?

[[Page 3329]]

  In response to these reports, the Attorney General claims that he 
``never met Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign.'' That 
is a wholly inadequate response. The Attorney General was a top adviser 
to the Trump campaign. He took a private, undisclosed meeting with the 
Russian Ambassador during the height of concerns about Russian 
involvement in our election. Think about it. There are reports 
everywhere about concerns about Russian involvement in the election of 
the United States, and he has an undisclosed meeting with the Russian 
Ambassador.
  He also met with the Russian Ambassador during an event at the 
Republican National Convention. One would think, at the Republican 
National Convention, it is possible that politics might be discussed. 
Now, if the Attorney General thinks his explanation is sufficient after 
he misled Congress about these contacts, of course, he is mistaken. I 
don't say that as a Democrat. I think everybody would agree to that. 
What I worry about is that the Attorney General is only the latest 
Trump administration official who has attempted to mask his contacts 
with the Kremlin.
  The President's first National Security Advisor lied to the Vice 
President about his communications with the Russian Ambassador. He only 
resigned after the media reported how he had lied to Vice President 
Pence, and even that was weeks after the President had been informed. 
He had to leave only when it became public. The President's Chief of 
Staff attempted to use the FBI--which, of course, would be in violation 
of Justice Department policies--to suppress news reports about Russian 
contacts. I have been here through seven previous Presidents--
Republicans and Democrats. You would assume they would play by the 
rules. This administration seems to want to make up the rules.
  My concern is not just what the administration might be doing; my 
concern is about Russia. We are, I believe strongly, the greatest 
democracy history has known. We are the longest existing democracy in 
history, and now we have Russia meddling and trying to undermine our 
democracy. Every American should worry about that. Every American 
should be frightened, not just concerned but frightened. It is an 
attack on our democracy. This is one of the most disturbing national 
security challenges facing our country. Russian President Putin ordered 
a multifaceted campaign that was aimed at helping Donald Trump win and 
undermining public faith in our election. That should alarm and outrage 
everybody no matter what party one belongs to.
  We didn't hear a word about it in the President's speech on Tuesday 
during the joint session of Congress. In fact, the President's only 
reaction has been to disparage American investigators, to disparage the 
intelligence community, to cast journalists who report on this as 
``enemies of the American people.'' Journalists are not enemies of the 
American people. Russia is the enemy of the American people. Putin is 
the enemy of the American people. Do not cast our journalists, do not 
cast our investigators, do not cast our intelligence people, do not 
cast those who dare speak out as being enemies of America. Point to the 
real enemies--Vladimir Putin and those he controls.
  It is about time we take this seriously. I have been here 42 years. I 
have never seen such a perfidious threat to our democracy than what we 
are seeing in Vladimir Putin, and my concern is the administration does 
not call it out for what it is. We Americans deserve to know the facts. 
We deserve a full and fair investigation. We deserve one that is free 
from any political influence.
  I have repeatedly called on Attorney General Sessions, who was one of 
President Trump's top advisers during the campaign, to recuse himself 
and appoint a special counsel to conduct the investigation. Earlier 
this week, he said: ``I would recuse myself on anything that I should 
recuse myself on.'' This morning, he said he would recuse himself 
``whenever it's appropriate.'' This would be a ludicrous response from 
a law clerk at the Department of Justice. From the Attorney General, it 
is dissembling.
  Recusal is not optional here. It is required by very clear Justice 
Department regulations. It is required to maintain at least a semblance 
of integrity in this investigation. The Attorney General has to recuse 
himself because, as stated clearly in Department rules, he is obviously 
``closely identified'' with the President due to his ``service as a 
principal adviser.'' That is the rule, and that is the rule whether it 
is a Republican or a Democratic administration. It describes his 
relationship with the President.
  The investigation has to be led by someone who, in reality and in 
appearance, is impartial and removed from politics. That does not 
describe someone who was in the trenches of a political campaign with 
the subjects of the investigation while they were allegedly engaged in 
the very activity under investigation. It does not describe somebody 
who misled Congress--who misled the Republican-led Senate Judiciary 
Committee--about his own activities that have been implicated in the 
investigation.
  This is not a close call. We know Russia is doing everything to 
undermine our democracy. Let's stand up for America. Let's do what is 
best for our country. The Attorney General should start by stepping 
aside. Then what we need is an independent investigation, and we need 
answers.
  I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska for her 
indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the matter pending before the Senate 
this morning is the nomination of Rick Perry to be Secretary of Energy, 
and I have come to the floor to speak to that nomination.
  As with Representative Zinke, whom we confirmed to be Secretary of 
the Interior just yesterday, I am equally proud to support Governor 
Perry's nomination. I know colleagues from both sides of the aisle will 
be joining me as we make statements in support of this individual to 
our new President's Cabinet.
  Before that though, here's a little bit on Governor Perry's 
background. He is one who has devoted his life--literally decades of 
his life--to public service. After graduating from Texas A&M, he joined 
the U.S. Air Force. He piloted C-130 tactical airlift aircraft in 
Europe as well as in the Middle East. He has served as a State 
representative, agriculture commissioner, Lieutenant Governor, and of 
course Governor of Texas.
  During his time as Governor, Rick Perry showed that economic growth 
and environmental stewardship cannot only survive and coexist, but that 
they can really thrive. Over the course of 14 years, Texas added 2.2 
million jobs, saw its population grow by more than 6 million people, 
and at the same time he had this robust growth within his State's 
population, the State reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 17 
percent, reduced its sulfur dioxide emissions by 56 percent, and 
reduced its nitrous oxide emissions by 66 percent. So in most States 
where you have a considerable plus-up in your population and a growing 
economy, you also see growing levels of impact, growing levels of 
emission. However Governor Perry dealt with this head-on, and we saw 
the results over the course of 14 years in the State of Texas.
  He led an effort to decommission older and dirtier power plants. He 
prioritized the development of emerging and innovative technologies, 
including carbon sequestration and capture. As a result of his 
leadership in the State of Texas, that State now leads our Nation in 
producing more wind energy than all but five other countries.
  Coming from the State of Alaska, as the Presiding Officer and I do, 
we recognize that we are labeled as an oil State. Well, Texas certainly 
has been labeled as an oil-producing State. Yet under Governor Perry's 
leadership, we have seen Texas lead the Nation in producing more wind 
energy than all but five other countries. For those who may come to the 
floor and suggest that, somehow or another, Governor Perry is anti-
environment or bring up

[[Page 3330]]

the issue of climate change and suggest that he does not support care 
for our environment, that is simply not the case, and clearly in his 
case, actions speak louder than words.
  As Texas's longest serving Governor, Rick Perry guided a large, 
diverse and very complex State government to economic success. Again, 
when we are talking about States, Alaska is always out there bragging 
about our size, but if Texas were its own country, it would be the 12th 
largest economy in the world. So it is one thing to talk about size 
just by way of geography, but I think it is important--when we are 
talking about economic contribution, the size of Texas as the 12th 
largest economy in the world is pretty significant.
  What happened in the State of Texas? Not only did the people of Texas 
give their endorsement to Governor Perry to ask him to serve again as 
Governor, they gave him their endorsement for his work by reelecting 
him to office not once but twice--14 years. Governor Perry is a 
principled leader, and that will serve him well as he takes the helm at 
the Department of Energy.
  DOE has a very important mission, ranging from the maintenance of our 
nuclear weapons stockpile to the research and development of new energy 
technologies. At the same time it is also a department, a bureaucracy, 
something that I think we recognize. It is large. It is cumbersome, 
with tens of thousands of employees and contractors. I think the 
example Governor Perry showed as the State leader of Texas is an 
example that will do well at the Department of Energy--capable of 
really setting a good direction for the Department.
  It has been suggested that he is not one of them in the sense that he 
is not an award-winning scientist, but, as I mentioned at his hearing 
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, you do not 
necessarily need to have a scientist to lead other scientists; you need 
to have somebody who is a good, strong, competent, capable manager. 
That is what Governor Perry has demonstrated, and that is what the 
Department of Energy needs. He will hold his employees and contractors 
accountable. We know he will be a responsible steward of taxpayer 
dollars.
  I think he will work to continue to break down the research silos 
that have frustrated the Department and work to find ways where there 
can be greater collaboration, greater working together.
  I am also confident that he will pursue policies that will ultimately 
provide us with more energy, more stable sources of energy for us 
where--unfortunately, we have great sources of energy, but it is high 
cost. We need to be working with the Department of Energy. We need 
collaboration there to do what we can to reduce the cost of energy, as 
well as reduce the amount of energy we consume. By supporting basic 
research, encouraging scientific exploration, and fostering innovation, 
the Department will increase access to energy, make it more affordable, 
and continue to improve its environmental performance.
  We have 17 National Labs. We are very proud of them. These National 
Labs are at the heart of those efforts. I have had good conversations 
with Governor Perry. He reaffirmed in our committee hearing that he 
clearly recognizes and values the work done by the men and women at our 
National Labs.
  One area, which we do not cover within our Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources but which is a big part of DOE's mission, is the 
maintenance and the protection of America's nuclear weapons. Governor 
Perry recognizes the importance of that mission, and he is committed to 
working with experts at the NNSA to maintain a proper stockpile 
stewardship program.
  I believe Governor Perry will also put his management experience to 
work on a challenge that has really vexed the Department and affected 
States for a long period of time. He recognizes that we must clean up 
the legacy wastes that have been left behind by our nuclear weapons 
programs, particularly at the largest of these sites in Washington 
State. My hope is that, through his leadership, the Office of 
Environmental Management can finally move off of GAO's high-risk list. 
I know these conversations have been had with many members on the 
committee. It has been pressed as a priority. But, again, ensuring that 
we deal with these legacy waste sites has to be a priority.
  I will reiterate that my hope is that Governor Perry will help 
address the crisis of rural energy prices in Alaska, as well as in 
other parts of the country where unfortunately we face high energy 
costs.
  The Department must do a better job of partnering with institutions. 
In our State of Alaska, we have the opportunity to work with DOE 
collaboratively. We have been the incubators of good ideas, whether it 
is in energy microgrids or in some of the other pioneering way, we have 
done it because of necessity. We have no other options. We look to our 
institutions to find these good ideas, build on them, and work to bring 
down the costs and transition our many remote communities that are 
still relying on diesel power. Far too many of our communities are 
still dependent on diesel and that is just not right.
  So working with Alaska--allow us to be that proving ground for the 
Department of Energy. Allow us to be that place where we can first 
deploy some of these new ideas, these innovative ideas, these projects 
to help lower the costs and really make a difference in people's lives.
  Again, I am proud to be here to support Governor Perry's nomination. 
I believe he has the management experience we need in the Department of 
Energy right now to help pursue scientific discovery and to promote 
innovation, to maintain and safeguard our nuclear weapons stockpile, to 
make progress on the cleanup of legacy waste, and to partner with 
States like Alaska that suffer from high energy costs.
  I think we recognize that he has his work cut out for him, but we are 
counting on him to fulfill those responsibilities and to keep the 
Department of Energy as one that we look to for true leadership not 
only here in the United States but around the world.
  Governor Rick Perry has a strong record of results based on his 
public service in the State of Texas. He is a proven leader, and I am 
confident he will do a good job for us leading the Department of Energy 
in this new administration. I will be supporting his nomination, and I 
certainly urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Texas Independence Day

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today is Texas Independence Day--a day 
that inspires pride and gratitude in the hearts of all 28 million 
Texans.
  Before I came to the floor, I asked the Presiding Officer, who hails 
from the great State of Alaska, to remind me--and he did--that Alaska 
is 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas in terms of landmass, not in terms of 
population. But today commemorates the signing of the Texas Declaration 
of Independence, when Texas declared itself a republic and independent 
from the Nation of Mexico.
  Here in the Senate, we remember the sacrifice of those who came 
before us and laid the foundation for our State by reading a letter 
written by William Barret Travis, a defender of the Alamo. That 
tradition goes back to 1961, when then-Senator John Tower started that 
tradition. I am told my colleague Senator Cruz will read that letter in 
full later today, perhaps around 12:30, carrying on this great 
tradition. So today I wish to express my gratitude for these Texas 
patriots, many of whom would later serve in the U.S. Congress, 
including Sam Houston, whose Senate seat I am honored to now occupy.
  Sam Houston came from his farm outside Huntsville, TX, in 1846. It 
took him about 3 weeks to get to Washington, DC. Of course, he didn't 
have a

[[Page 3331]]

modern mode of transportation, but I always marvel at the fact that it 
now takes me about 3 hours to get home, where it took old Sam 3 weeks 
just to make a one-way trip.


                           U.S.-Mexico Border

  Mr. President, on another matter, last week I had the great privilege 
of hosting a number of my congressional colleagues at the Texas border. 
At a time when so many people are talking about the border of the 
United States and Mexico, I thought it was important to bring 
colleagues who were willing to come to learn and listen about the 
impact of trade, border security, and our relationship with Mexico on 
my State and on the United States. Of course, this border is so 
important on all of those issues--security, trade, the economy. It is 
important to see where they intersect. I am glad they had a chance to 
come to listen and learn last week.
  We did receive a number of very important and useful briefings from 
Customs officials, Border Patrol agents, and other Federal partners in 
three major areas along the border, including the Rio Grande Valley. We 
were in McAllen, TX, Laredo, and Del Rio. I think what my colleagues 
discovered--if they didn't already know it--is how varied each part of 
the border is. This is not just true in Texas. It is true in San Diego. 
It is true in Arizona. It is true in New Mexico. When anybody suggests 
that we can attain a goal that we all share, which is border security, 
by just one solution, I think it is important to examine that 
conclusion and to test it because, frankly, I think what the Border 
Patrol will tell you is that what we need is infrastructure, yes. We 
need technology, yes. Then we need people.
  That is the formula--personnel, technology, and infrastructure. In my 
own view, border security is a question of political will. The previous 
administration did not have that political will. I believe this 
administration does, and it has been long overdue. I welcome that.
  We are going to be working with our State and local officials to make 
sure that they have the resources they need in order to get the job 
done. At the same time, I think what we were able to demonstrate to 
some of our friends from out of State is that we have an important 
trading relationship with Mexico. As a matter of fact, 5 million 
American jobs depend on binational trade with Mexico.
  We went to one of the largest land ports in the country. I think, 
maybe, it is the largest port of the country--Laredo, TX--where some 
15,000 trucks enter the United States every day. It is a huge influx of 
cargo and, fortunately, businesses all up and down and along the border 
have worked with the law enforcement agencies, with Customs and Border 
Protection to make sure that we can expedite the flow of legal trade 
into the United States. At the same time, we police for the entry of 
illegal drugs and for people illegally entering the United States 
without proper authority.
  One reason why my State has done pretty well relative to the rest of 
the country in terms of our economy is because of our business-friendly 
attitude. We believe in lower taxes, reasonable regulation, and a 
welcoming attitude when it comes to people who make investments and who 
want to come to our State and start businesses or grow businesses.
  We all know that roughly 70 percent of job growth in this country 
comes not from the Fortune 500 companies but from those small and 
medium-sized businesses. We work very hard to be a business-friendly 
State. Why? It is not just because we care about businesses but because 
we care about the workers who work at those employers.
  As one of my former colleagues likes to say, you can't claim to be 
worker-friendly if you are hostile to the businesses that employ them. 
That is an inconsistent approach. You need to be consistent.
  In addition to the issue of illegal entry into the United States by 
individuals who come without regard to our immigration laws, we also 
have a tremendous influx of illegal drugs into the United States. I 
think one of the things I was reminded of that we all should be 
cognizant of is that when we focus on the illegal drug activity in 
Mexico, Central America, or South America, we need to look in the 
mirror as a nation because the only way those cartels exist and make 
the money they make and commit the mayhem and violence they commit is 
because of demand in the United States.
  I was very encouraged to hear Secretary John Kelly--former Marine 
Gen. John Kelly. He is still a marine, always a marine, but now he has 
taken off the uniform and assumed the responsibility of Secretary of 
the Department of Homeland Security. He previously served as the 
commanding general in the Southern Command, as the Presiding Officer 
knows, which covers the combatant command from south of Mexico down to 
Central America and South America. So he is very familiar with the 
region. He made the point, before his confirmation hearing, that there 
is one thing he would like to see the United States do--effect a major 
societal and cultural change to deal with the demand for illegal drugs, 
which fuels all of the cartels and the transnational criminal 
organizations which plague our security situation along the border and 
in our neighbors to the south.
  I want to say that I am appreciative of our colleagues who joined us 
on the trip--Senators Tillis and Heller, Congressman Rouzer from North 
Carolina, and my colleagues from Texas, Congressmen John Carter and 
Mike Conaway.
  I also wanted to say how much I appreciate Speaker Ryan coming to 
Texas and the Rio Grande Valley last Wednesday for, unfortunately, a 
short period of time, but we are all grateful that he came at all--I 
think, at the invitation of people like Congressman Michael McCaul, 
chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House of 
Representatives. I think it is going to take all of our efforts working 
together to effect and implement the President's vision of border 
security, a goal we all share.
  I think what we all were reminded of is that it is more complex than 
some people assume, and it is going to take a combination of 
approaches, including personnel. We need to plus-up the Border Patrol 
because it doesn't do you any good if you identify somebody illegally 
bringing a shipment of drugs or illegally entering the United States if 
you don't have a Border Patrol agent to stop them. Also, the very 
useful border infrastructure--fencing and walls, for example, in the 
Hidalgo County area--were actually implemented as a way to improve 
their levee system when the Rio Grande river floods. They have actually 
created a dual-use structure that actually satisfies the Border 
Patrol's need for physical infrastructure along with levee improvements 
in a win-win situation.
  I believe that consulting with local officials and local 
stakeholders, we at the Federal level can come up with more of those 
win-win solutions. The point is that we have learned a lot, 
particularly in our military, about how to use technology to keep us 
safe--whether it is unmanned aerial vehicles or ground sensors or 
radars. Actually, they have several new aerostats, or balloons, up in 
the sky that are basically the eyes in the sky, or radar, which do a 
tremendous job helping to identify people illegally entering the United 
States and equipping the Border Patrol and law enforcement authorities 
with the sort of early notice they need in order to interdict people 
illegally entering the country.
  I will close by saying that one of the always surprising things I 
learn when I go to the Rio Grande Valley and talk to the Border Patrol 
is this. I ask them: How many different countries are represented by 
the people whom you detain illegally entering the United States? 
Obviously, the majority of them come from our neighbors to the south, 
not as much from Mexico as you might suspect anymore, because the 
Mexican economy is doing better and people are finding more 
opportunities there. But right now, the majority of the flow of people 
illegally entering the United States is from Central America.
  Unfortunately, the tragic situation there where mothers and fathers 
worry about their children--whether they are going to be killed by 
gangs or whether

[[Page 3332]]

they are going to be forced to join gangs--and somehow make the very 
painful and difficult choice of turning their children over to human 
smugglers to try to make their way up the backbone of Mexico and into 
the United States, to be deposited on our doorstop in the United 
States.
  Last week when the congressional delegation was in McAllen, we went 
through the processing area where some of these immigrants from Central 
America were being processed. I asked a young boy there, who was in the 
process of being processed--through my regional director, because he 
spoke only Spanish--how old he was, and he said he was 6 years old. He 
wasn't unaccompanied in that trip from Central America, but his mother 
and father thought it was important enough to get him out of that 
ravaged part of the world, where the prospects are not very good, and 
to turn him over to a human smuggler to make his way up into the United 
States, only to find himself at a Border Patrol processing unit in 
McAllen, TX.
  My point is that I also met a young man from India, and I asked him: 
How much did it cost you to get to the United States from India?
  He said: About $6,000.
  I said: How did you get here?
  He said: I took a plane from India.
  He went through Moscow, he said, and ended up in Central America, 
where he worked his way up with the help of human smugglers into the 
United States.
  I mention that only to point out that we have a vulnerability there 
where anybody determined enough or with enough money can find their way 
into the United States. We generally assume these people are economic 
migrants--in other words, looking for opportunity. We all understand 
that. Those same vulnerabilities create potential danger for our Nation 
and our local communities when people with unknown motives exploit 
those same vulnerabilities to come into the United States.
  The last point I will make, again, to emphasize the global nature of 
illegal immigration into the United States is this. We saw that the 
Border Patrol has several rescue beacons in Brooks County, TX. This is 
about 70 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. What happens is that the 
human smugglers will transport people into the United States and across 
the river. They will put them in stash houses, really in terrible 
conditions. As a matter of fact, we went to one of these stash houses. 
They found 18 migrants in the stash house waiting to be transported up 
the highway into the heartland of America.
  One of the checkpoints there is at Falfurrias, about 70 miles away 
from the border. What happens is that the smugglers will have people 
packed into a van or some vehicle, and before they get to the 
checkpoint, they will tell the immigrants to get out. If it is hot, 
they will give them a gallon jug--a milk jug--full of water and they 
will say: I will see you on the other side. They go around the 
checkpoint, out through the very difficult ranchland, and meet up on 
the north side, and then are transported off.
  In Brooks County, TX, we went by a cemetery where a number of unknown 
and unnamed migrants have been buried because they have died due to 
exposure. Some of these immigrants coming from Central America come up 
through Mexico. You can imagine the conditions they have been exposed 
to, and in the heat of the summer, they have been kicked out of a car 
and told ``meet us on the north side,'' with a gallon jug of water, and 
some of them don't make it. Of course the smugglers don't care about 
people. You are just a commodity. You are just a paycheck. So they will 
leave stragglers behind. Many of the ranchers said they found as many 
as 100 different dead bodies on their property over an unspecified 
period of time.
  But there is a rescue beacon that the Border Patrol has down there 
that is in three languages. It is in English, Spanish, and Chinese. You 
might ask, why in the world would you need Chinese written on a rescue 
beacon where somebody thinks ``OK, I am not going to make it; I need 
help'' and goes and presses the button on the rescue beacon--that you 
need English, Spanish, and Chinese. Well, because they have had Chinese 
immigrants come through that border region, as well, like the young man 
from India whom I mentioned earlier. And we have had people from Cuba 
and from literally all around the world, including some nations that 
are hosts to terrorist organizations.
  This is not only an economic situation. This is not only a law 
enforcement problem when it comes to drug interdiction. It is a 
humanitarian crisis, as well. But it is also a national security issue, 
I think all the leaders of the intelligence community will concede, 
given the fact that people from 60 different countries have been 
detained coming across the southwestern border just in the last year by 
the McAllen sector of the Border Patrol.
  We have a lot of work to do. I hope we will be able to work with the 
President and this administration and in a bipartisan way to come up 
with the tools we need in order to secure our border. We need to 
enforce our immigration laws. Of course, 40 percent of illegal 
immigration in this country occurs not from people entering the country 
illegally, it is from people entering legally and overstaying their 
visa. We may not catch up with them until they commit a serious crime 
and they are arrested by local law enforcement. I think this is what 
causes so many people to be angry at the Federal Government for not 
enforcing our laws. And many of our colleagues, me included, would like 
to do more to fix our broken immigration system generally, but until we 
regain the public's confidence that we are actually serious about 
securing our border and enforcing our laws, I don't believe we can have 
that conversation. I don't believe we are going to be successful, which 
I would like to see us be.
  I think the first thing we need to do is to work with the 
administration in order to accomplish the goal of securing the border. 
Again, in the matter of political will, we know how to do it. We just 
need to have the desire to get it done. And then once we have regained 
the public's confidence that the Federal Government is once again 
living up to its responsibilities, then I think we can have that more 
expansive conversation about what our immigration system should look 
like.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                          National Park System

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to talk a few minutes about the 
challenges so many of our Cabinet members face trying to restore our 
infrastructure, to maintain our park system, and to create the public-
private partnerships the President mentioned earlier this week in his 
vision for infrastructure reform.
  Certainly Governor Perry, whose nomination we are debating right now, 
will have many opportunities in Energy to do that, in the research 
components of Energy and the partnership components that can be there.
  We just confirmed a new Secretary of Interior, Ryan Zinke. One of our 
great assets as a nation is the Federal park system. We are now 
entering the second hundred years of that Federal park system, and that 
second hundred years is going to be defined by partnerships in ways the 
first hundred years weren't.
  The park system is a great way to enjoy the blessings we have and the 
rich geography, the scenic beauty--some of these parks really reflect 
the great challenges people faced as they settled the country--and also 
there are historic parks that reflect the history. Sometimes our parks 
do both of those things.
  I think all of my colleagues are aware of the Gateway Arch in St. 
Louis, one of the most visited national parks, the Jefferson National 
Expansion Memorial there celebrating President Jefferson, celebrating 
the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and really celebrating that long 
movement as people moved west--eventually really west and really 
northwest, Mr. President, where you live in Alaska. But the Gateway 
Arch is visited often. It opened in 1967, and so now we are 50

[[Page 3333]]

years into that particular part of our system. The original park itself 
needed a lot of restoration, but 50 years later, you look at that park 
and you look at how it has been used and decide how it could be better 
used.
  What most of my colleagues probably aren't aware of is that right 
now, it is the biggest investment the National Park Service is making 
in the system at this moment, trying to connect the Gateway Arch to the 
Old Courthouse in St. Louis, the Federal courthouse where the Dred 
Scott case was tried--they are trying to connect that park to the rest 
of the city in ways that--when it was built, it was separated by an 
interstate highway, so you would go see the park, but you wouldn't get 
to the rest of the national park side there very often.
  Rethinking that is important, but what is maybe even more important 
is this is the biggest park project in the history of the country where 
private donors provided more of the money than the government did. This 
is not easily done. If for 100 years you have been doing something one 
way, it is not easy to immediately begin to say: We are going to do it 
another way from now on.
  If you are in charge, like Secretary Jewell was put in charge of this 
project--and by the way, I think she has done a good job, as has her 
regional director, understanding that if you are going to do things 
differently, they have to be different.
  It would be great if the city and private donors--the city even voted 
a tax just for this project, to provide millions of dollars that the 
project would be spending. Of course, I think initially the Park 
Service would think: Isn't that great? We now get this money from 
private donors, and we now get this money from a city tax, in addition 
to a portion of the money we are still getting appropriated by the 
Congress, and we will just spend it the way we have always spent it, as 
if we had no partners. But that didn't work out very well at all. The 
partners in the project actually wanted to be partners in the project.
  As we look at the next hundred years of this great National Park 
System, I think we have to understand that for that to work and for 
that to work in a new way, we have to treat it differently. We are 
seeing that in St. Louis. We are seeing the three different groups come 
together in ways that have provided the funding. But, frankly, they 
also need to be at the table when you talk about how you are going to 
spend the funding.
  We changed the law in Congress just a couple of years ago so that 
private money, if it is being held by the Federal Government, as it has 
been on that project, if there is any interest to be earned, if there 
is any benefit from that money, it also goes to the project rather than 
going into general revenue.
  The goal here would be to do everything we can, if we are going to 
have a different park system for the next hundred years, to really 
encourage the next group of people to step up and say: We want to 
provide--as in the case in St. Louis, MO--more than half of the money, 
but we would like to have some input on how that is going to be used 
and how this is going to meet the needs of the community.
  But also everybody who visits there, as they connect with the 
community uniquely in that St. Louis park--Missouri has a great park 
system. I think we are rated as one of the top four park systems in the 
country, our State system. In fact, right now we are looking at one of 
those State parks at Ste. Genevieve, which was a part of our State that 
was first settled by French settlers. The number of buildings there 
dating right back to the turn of the 19th century--1801, 1804--is 
reflective of how French settlers built buildings, which is different 
from how other settlers did.
  There is a lot to learn about how we come together as a people in so 
many of our parks, as well. So when Secretary Zinke takes that job, one 
of the new opportunities is to build on what is already started in 
places like St. Louis and figure out how we can have those kinds of 
partnerships when the President talks about infrastructure expansion 
and how we are going to look for new ways to do that. As you look at 
new ways to do that, you have to really be willing to think of how you 
approach this in a way that encourages partners to be part of it.
  Clearly, infrastructure--one of the great benefits of where we are 
located is where we are located. We have an ocean on two sides. We have 
a river that runs up the middle of the country, that connects the 
country in unique ways to all the water travel of the world. We have 
these coasts on each side that are beneficial to this if we connect 
ourselves in the right ways.
  So the President's view that the road system, the airport system, the 
port system all need to work in a way that links us up to be better 
competitors and links us up in a way that allows us to create economic 
opportunities and better jobs for families is important.
  So that kind of partnership, the partnership the park system is in--I 
think we are seeing the mold established, the model established for how 
that would work in St. Louis right now at the Arch. In the next couple 
of years, that project will be completed. It will be different than it 
was 50 years ago because people want to see things differently than 
they did 50 years ago.
  With Secretary Perry, who should be confirmed today--I think clearly 
will be confirmed today--his opportunities at Energy to look for 
partners who add to what we can do there in ways we haven't thought of 
before--just like we use research money now, take that research money 
in health research and research money in ag research to bring other 
people into this discussion that creates opportunities for who we can 
be.
  As we move slowly and in a way that has really made it difficult to 
take advantage of this new administration, we are apparently going to 
be able to confirm two nominees to the Cabinet today. But we are still 
way behind, by any measure, the history of the country in working with 
a new administration to let them take responsibility. There are going 
to be 500, 1,000 nominees--I think there are about 1,000 Deputy 
Secretaries and Under Secretaries who come once we are done with the 
Cabinet. I hope we can all find a way to get this done, with an 
understanding that whether or not you agree with the election, the 
election was held and the new administration has the responsibility for 
government. It is the job of the Senate and the Senate alone to be sure 
that those Cabinet officers and the people who support those Cabinet 
officers and departments are put in place early, as well.
  Looking at the park system, looking at partnership, and looking at 
how important it is that we are willing to do things in a different way 
is something we ought to be thinking about in this week that we confirm 
the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Interior, and, later today, 
the Secretary of Energy.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on the 
nomination of Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, to be the Secretary of 
Energy. I just heard my colleague talking a little bit about the 
nomination process and hearings and the Cabinet. I want to emphasize 
that we have never seen a Cabinet quite like this--with their 
connections to the private sector, their financial holdings, a variety 
of other things.
  The American people deserve for us to do a good job of digging into 
the backgrounds of the various nominees so that the people know who 
exactly the President has chosen to run these important government 
agencies. We are going to continue this process both for Cabinet-level 
nominees and also those nominated to serve in sub-Cabinet positions.
  I am here today to speak about the nominee to serve as Secretary of 
Energy--Governor Rick Perry of Texas.

[[Page 3334]]

Most people probably remember Governor Perry for his famous quip during 
a Presidential debate during which he announced he wanted to get rid of 
three agencies, but could not remember that the Department of Energy 
was one of them.
  So he became famous for forgetting that he wanted to abolish the 
Department of Energy. In some ways, this allowed everyone to focus on 
exactly how important the Department of Energy is to our Nation. The 
Department's vital missions not only help us with the R&D of the 
future, but also with our national security. The national laboratories 
that are overseen by the Department drive our leadership in a global 
economy. They are based on innovation and play a vital role across the 
Nation for people who rely on affordable and efficient energy to heat 
their homes, run their appliances, and connect to the internet.
  The Department of Energy safeguards our nuclear arsenal. It also is 
responsible for cleaning up the waste generated by our nuclear weapons 
complex facilities that helped us win World War II and the cold war. 
The Department also plays a key role in protecting our energy 
infrastructure from cyber attacks. It also makes important 
contributions to our understanding of climate science, enabling the 
collection and management of data needed to understand our changing 
environment and is a major driver of innovation.
  Before Mr. Perry was even nominated, the transition team was already 
targeting Department of Energy climate scientists. The transition team 
sought a list of those Department employees and contractors that had 
worked on climate change issues during the Obama Administration. This 
came across as an attempt to try to shut down those climate scientists 
and target them in a Trump Administration.
  Silencing scientists is outrageous. We need an Energy Secretary who 
is not only going to protect the scientists who work at DOE no matter 
what their responsibility is but who is also going to make sure we use 
that important data for research and for mitigating the impacts of 
climate change on our coastal communities and pristine areas. Climate 
change is already producing significant impacts in the State of 
Washington and throughout the West. We need scientists working on this 
issue to get our States and local governments the best data and 
information possible.
  As I previously mentioned, the Department of Energy is also an 
important driver of innovation. There is so much happening in the areas 
of smart buildings and modernizing our grid and resiliency and energy 
efficiency.
  The thing that concerned me most about Governor Perry was his 
unwillingness to commit wholeheartedly to preserving the Electricity 
Office and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy within 
the Department. We need these offices and their R&D so that the U.S. 
can continue to create jobs in our growing energy economy.
  Continued aggressive research and development is necessary if we are 
going to become more energy efficient and consumers are going to have 
access to reliable and affordable electricity. We need a Secretary who 
is going to emphatically push the Trump administration in the proper 
direction. That is exactly what we wanted to hear from Governor Perry 
in the Energy committee. Four members of the committee asked about his 
commitment to these programs. Unfortunately, the nominee dodged the 
questions. I followed up with Governor Perry after his confirmation 
hearing, and he still failed to provide a commitment to fight for these 
important programs. So I regret that I will not be able to support this 
nominee.
  We need to make sure that the United States will continue to support 
the R&D, the scientists, the investments in electric grid 
modernization, and the investments in cyber security that are going to 
help make our Nation safe and our economy strong. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this nomination, and I hope that we can move forward on 
making sure that we have an aggressive energy strategy for the future.
  With that, I see my colleague from Washington. I would like to yield 
some time to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington 
State, who has made a really important case. I want to be here today to 
add my opinion, as well, because over the past 2 months we have heard a 
lot about President Trump's plan to drain the swamp, which is to reject 
special interests and the corporate elite and, instead, fight for 
workers across our country.
  There are a whole lot of claims, a whole lot of promises--all great. 
Fighting for workers is what this Congress should be doing, but the 
President's actions speak a lot louder than his words. I find it 
telling that we are here again debating yet another Cabinet nominee 
sent over from the White House--this time Gov. Rick Perry--whose 
interests have been more closely aligned with those of Big Oil and 
corporations rather than advancing our country's energy challenges or 
fighting for the working families we represent.
  So let me be clear. If confirmed to head up the Department of Energy, 
Governor Perry would join the ranks of other unqualified candidates 
chosen by this President to lead critically important agencies with 
very specific and complex functions. It is a big job. I believe that 
getting the top spot at the Department of Energy--or anywhere else in 
the President's Cabinet--should not simply be a prize for demonstrating 
loyalty during an election.
  Getting the job should be borne of a solid understanding of the 
agency, a respect for the tens of thousands of workers they would lead, 
and, most importantly, a commitment to putting families across the 
country first. So as a voice from my home State of Washington, where 
DOE's presence is extremely important, I will vote no on Governor 
Perry's nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Washington State is home to the Hanford nuclear reservation near the 
Tri-Cities. Nearly 75 years ago, this region underwent a dramatic 
transformation, practically overnight and under top-secret conditions, 
to help the United States win World War II and later the Cold War.
  Families and workers in this region of our State sacrificed immensely 
for the good of our country and the safety of our world. To this day, 
there is a massive environmental impact in the Tri-Cities created by 
decades of nuclear weapons production. Now this cleanup effort is 
vital, not only to the health and safety of families and workers and 
the economy in Central Washington but also for communities along the 
Colombia River.
  As I have told anyone elected as President, whether Democrat or 
Republican, it is the Federal Government's moral and legal obligation 
and responsibility to clean up Hanford. I know that is not an easy 
feat, but it is essential. It requires a very deep understanding of a 
very large and complex cleanup project and a great deal of respect for 
the workers who show up each day to make progress on this massive 
project. I remain deeply concerned that Governor Perry and this 
administration fail to grasp what is at stake.
  I am also concerned that they don't get the importance of another 
national asset not far from Hanford, the Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory. For more than 50 years, the men and women at PNNL have been 
on the forefront of scientific discovery. It was originally created to 
support research and development at Hanford, but PNNL has become DOE's 
premiere chemistry, environmental sciences, and data analytics national 
lab, tackling some of our Nation's most complex and urgent challenges.
  PNNL is a leader in atmospheric research, nuclear detection and 
nonproliferation, and the Nation's electric grid. Its researchers have 
taken on everything from high-performance computing to advanced 
biofuels to analyzing lunar samples from NASA. These are critically 
important functions that advance our Nation.
  I have worked hard with the entire Washington State congressional 
delegation, not to mention a whole host of

[[Page 3335]]

leaders at the local and State level, to support this vital research 
and development hub and its incredible workforce. Just like the workers 
at Hanford, they also deserve leaders in this administration who 
respect and value their work. So, if President Trump were truly looking 
out for workers across our country, he would take this nomination to 
the Energy Department very seriously.
  I understand Governor Perry gave his word during his confirmation 
hearing that he would work with us and even come to Washington State to 
visit Hanford and PNNL. If he is confirmed by the Senate, you can bet I 
will hold him to that because one I thing I have learned in the short 
40-plus days of this administration is that we do get a lot of words. 
But it is the action that truly matters.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for coming to the 
floor and for her statement on this important issue. She and I are 
partners in making sure that Hanford waste is cleaned up. We so much 
want to continue to make progress on this important issue for our 
State. Having dealt with previous Energy Secretaries, we know that it 
is always a fight to make sure that Hanford gets the priority it 
deserves, so I thank her for that.
  I want to resume my comments about the key functions the Department 
of Energy performs and why it is vitally important that the agency 
succeeds in its missions, rather than be dismantled by a President who 
may not understand the significance of the work the Department does.
  I am speaking specifically about the Department of Energy's programs 
to enhance our energy efficiency, promote renewable energy innovation, 
mobilize, modernize and bolster the security of our electricity grid, 
and continue to make significant advancements in science. I have spoken 
to Governor Perry on a couple of occasions, but, as I mentioned 
earlier, I failed to hear him commit to these essential DOE programs.
  Our Nation's energy sector is undergoing an unbelievable 
transformation from fossil fuels. These changes are giving consumers 
more choice and lower energy bills and producing a more robust job-
creation environment.
  There are now 2.2 million Americans who work in the energy efficiency 
industry alone. In fact, energy efficiency accounted for 14 percent of 
all new jobs created in this country last year. That is an incredible 
number. We need to continue making investments in smart cars and smart 
buildings and homes of the future and how they are going to be 
integrated to reduce energy use and lower bills.
  We just had a hearing this morning in the Commerce Committee and 
talked about broadband and white space and the continued development of 
the mobile economy and how we need to continue to take advantage of 
those advancements, particularly in rural communities.
  The solar power workforce is also growing at a rapid rate. Last year, 
1 out of every 50 new jobs in the United States was from solar power. 
The solar industry now employs more people than the oil and gas 
extraction or coal mining industries. These are important economic 
sectors.
  In the last administration, the Energy Department's Quadrennial 
Energy Review estimated that 1.5 million new energy jobs will need to 
be filled, many of which will be in emerging energy technologies that 
will help define our clean energy economy. There are approximately 
60,000 people in my home State of Washington who are employed in the 
clean energy sector. In fact, clean energy employment is growing twice 
as fast as the overall job rate in the State of Washington.
  We have made too much progress, we have come too far in continuing to 
advance these important technologies to reverse course now. These 
advancements are going to help drive more savings and efficiency for 
consumers and businesses so they can be competitive. We must have 
leadership at the Department of Energy making sure that progress 
continues.
  I take Governor Perry at his word that he has now been fully briefed 
and he no longer believes the Department of Energy should be abolished. 
But his testimony raised questions about whether he will fight to 
protect the Department's essential programs from ideologues in a Trump 
administration that want to defund and eliminate these programs.
  To better understand these challenges, let's briefly review the 
history. Just before the President was elected, the transition team's 
energy group sent a memo outlining 14 energy and environmental 
initiatives the new administration would be pushing. The memo pointed 
out that the Trump administration was going to eliminate and rescind 
and relax several Obama administration initiatives that are important 
to energy efficiency, important to reducing greenhouse gases, and 
require agencies to take the costs associated with climate into 
account. Shortly afterwards, the transition team sent an unprecedented 
questionnaire to the Energy Department, targeting scientists and civil 
servants who worked on these issues and asked the Obama administration 
to identify them.
  The morning of Governor Perry's hearing, we awoke to news that the 
President's team was working on a proposal to eliminate the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Electricity. 
So all those jobs I previously mentioned that are key in my State, key 
in the United States, and, I guarantee you, key to the U.S. economy's 
competitiveness in the future, would be at risk. Driving down the cost 
of electricity and keeping our businesses competitive is key to our 
Nation's economic strategy. I know that as a Senator who comes from a 
State with very affordable electricity. It has built our economy over 
and over and over and over again.
  If you think about how our manufacturers have to compete in a global 
economy and look at where some of the manufacturing has gone or where 
our competition exists, these issues of cost-effective and efficient 
energy are key to our competitiveness as a nation.
  We have seen in the State of California unbelievable results from 
energy efficiency. It is far cheaper to save a kilowatt of energy than 
it is to produce one, and this key factor is what has made California 
the leader in our Nation in energy efficiency and helped California 
businesses to be competitive. So we do not want to eliminate the Office 
of Energy Efficiency or the Office of Electricity.
  As I said earlier, we tried to get Governor Perry to take a solid 
stance on these issues and commit wholeheartedly to fighting any 
attempt to do away with these important offices, but he failed to make 
a commitment.
  During the President's very first hour in office, the administration 
announced it was going to eliminate the Obama administration's climate 
action plan. This plan even included a program started by President 
George H.W. Bush--the Global Climate Research Initiative to assess and 
predict the impacts of climate change in the future.
  This is not a partisan issue. President George W. Bush called on 
Congress to enact energy efficiency legislation, which he subsequently 
signed into law, and based on bipartisan energy legislation passed in 
2005 and 2007, we improved lighting efficiency by 70 percent and 
increased fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. So I don't 
understand why the Trump administration is apparently so hostile to 
energy efficiency.
  The Energy Department's energy efficiency programs are expected to 
save American consumers $2 trillion on their utility bills by 2030 and 
reduce carbon emissions by 7.3 billion tons over the same period. That 
is equivalent to taking 1.6 billion cars off the road. The fact that 
businesses could save $2 trillion by reducing their utility bills in 
the future is something we should all be passionate about. Our 
manufacturing base needs to remain competitive.
  In addition, the Bush administration worked to get the United States 
and China--the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters--to work together on 
clean energy solutions. President Bush also chose in his State of the 
Union Address

[[Page 3336]]

to be an advocate for energy efficiency, electric vehicles, biofuels, 
R&D, and a clean energy economy. I now appreciate even more now how 
much he advocated for those programs. It seems strange now to see a new 
Republican administration that seems so single-mindedly against these 
important energy advancements that are going to help our economy.
  The Department of Energy also plays an essential role in protecting 
the electric grid from cyber and physical attacks. The Office of 
Electricity plays a very key role for our Nation, and, as we know, 
there is a full-throated debate about what cyber security attacks can 
do to the United States of America.
  These issues about how some regime could undermine our U.S. democracy 
are critical. We need to address it, and we need to be aggressive as a 
nation about it.
  The Office of Electricity plays a key role, and we want the 
Department of Energy to be aggressive in asserting its leadership on 
cyber security. If you are not committed to the Office of Electricity, 
if you are not committed to these vital programs, how are you going to 
be committed to protecting us on cyber security?
  It should not have been difficult for Governor Perry to speak more 
urgently about these programs or to say he disagreed with the 
administration's reported desire to cut them. For instance, he spoke 
eloquently about energy diversification and pointed us to his record as 
Governor. But, as I looked back at his record, I noticed that he tried 
to add 11 new coal plants, 8 of which were subsequently canceled after 
a court overturned his executive order expediting the coal permitting 
process. This is the kind of leadership we cannot afford at the 
Department of Energy. That is not about holding on to the past; we need 
a plan for the future.
  Finally, I want to mention President Trump's recent Executive order 
regarding the National Security Council. While it is within the 
discretion of the President to structure his National Security Council 
as he sees fit, the Secretary of Energy is a member of the National 
Security Council by virtue of statute. The President's Executive order 
removed the Secretary of Energy from the principals committee and what 
under the Obama administration was called the senior interagency forum 
for considering policy issues that affect the national security 
interests of the United States.
  I can guarantee you that energy is an issue of national security. We 
need leadership out of the Department of Energy to be strategic on 
electricity, transmission, and cyber security.
  The Department of Energy's technical expertise is vast and is not 
limited to the implementation of the Iran deal. The Department plays a 
key role on nuclear security issues.
  I take the Governor at his word that he will come to Hanford, that he 
will look for funding to make sure that cleanup happens, and I take him 
at his word that he does want to work with Members of Congress.
  Unfortunately, his unwillingness to commit to critical offices at the 
Department that are responsible for important scientific research, 
giving our government and our communities more data and information 
about climate science, making the investments we need in our 
electricity grid of the future, is something that concerns me about his 
nomination. I cannot support Governor Perry.
  I know so much will get boiled down to this sound bite of him being 
the nominee of an agency that he said he wanted to abolish and then, at 
the same time, could not even remember the agency. I guarantee you, the 
Energy Department is a vital, functioning program not just for today's 
energy needs, but as the quadrennial review said, for our future energy 
needs.
  So we could have an Energy Secretary who is going to help us with the 
transformation, protecting us on cyber security, making sure our 
businesses reap the benefits of greater energy efficiency, and, when it 
comes to the electricity grid of the future, making sure we plan for 
those 1.5 million jobs that are going to be needed. But those aren't 
the commitments we have had from Governor Perry.
  I hope my colleagues will recognize that this nomination is not the 
direction the Department of Energy needs to go in and oppose Governor 
Perry for the Department of Energy.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, as recently as 2006, Hawaii relied on 
imported fuel for 92 percent of our energy needs. This was bad for our 
economy and bad for our environment, and it needed to change. Today, 
Hawaii has the most ambitious renewable energy goals in the country, 
and we are working toward becoming 100 percent energy self-sufficient 
for electricity by 2045. In order to meet this ambitious goal, we are 
investing in a renewable energy future. It means cleaner air and water 
to enjoy, and it is driving a lot of local innovation. Let me give you 
a few examples.
  Last Friday, I attended a blessing for a new biofuel project in 
Maui's central valley. Pacific Biodiesel, run by Bob and Kelly King, is 
repurposing 115 acres of land previously used for commercial sugar 
cultivation in order to test the energy potential of different 
sunflower varieties for biofuels. If they are successful, this project 
could grow to provide hundreds of jobs on the island and help Hawaii on 
its path to energy self-sufficiency.
  Bob and Kelly got their start in repurposing used cooking oil. They 
have grown their company to run the Nation's first commercially viable 
biodiesel distillery on Hawaii Island, and they employ 80 people. Along 
the way, they have received support and funding through the Hawaii 
Military Biofuels Crop Program, which has allowed them to experiment, 
learn from their mistakes, and, ultimately, succeed.
  Yesterday, I met with Naveen Sikka, the founder and CEO of TerViva, 
which is a startup that grows pongamia trees that produce an oil seed 
that can be used for biofuels. In working with Hawaii's Energy 
Excelerator, TerViva is already growing pongamia trees on 200 acres on 
Oahu and is looking to expand its operations across the State.
  TerViva and Pacific Biodiesel are working together to explore how to 
help Hawaii achieve its renewable energy goals.
  In 2015, I met with Global Algae Innovations, a company that is 
pioneering the production of algae for use in biofuels on Kauai. 
Funding from the Department of Energy, or DOE, has been instrumental in 
its research. Support from the Department is vital in helping them and 
other algae biofuel companies finish scaling up commercial production 
at competitive prices.
  These stories provide a compelling counternarrative to the 
President's belief that we should prioritize fossil fuel extraction 
over renewable energy development. These stories also demonstrate the 
role government can play in encouraging energy innovation.
  During the Obama administration, our country made significant 
progress in confronting the challenge of climate change, investing in 
clean energy research and development, and growing our renewable energy 
economy. Unfortunately, by nominating Rick Perry to serve as Secretary 
of Energy, the President is sending a clear signal. Instead of 
continuing the progress we have made, he wants to take us backward.
  During his confirmation hearing, Governor Perry insisted that he 
believed in an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. So far, it does 
not seem that the President shares his commitment.
  During the transition, a disturbing report leaked in the media that 
outlined the President's plans to make dramatic funding cuts at the 
Department of Energy. This extreme plan included eliminating the DOE's 
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, which focuses on the 
transition to American energy generation that is clean, affordable, and 
secure, not to mention sustainable. The plan would eliminate the DOE's 
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, which ensures 
the Nation's energy delivery system is secure, resilient, and reliable. 
This office works to strengthen the resiliency of the electric grid. 
The plan would also eliminate the DOE's Office of Fossil Energy,

[[Page 3337]]

which focuses on technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
  It is hard to see how it would be possible to pursue an ``all of the 
above'' energy strategy if so much of the Department's ``all of the 
above'' capabilities are eliminated.
  I asked Governor Perry, during his confirmation hearing, whether he 
supported those proposed cuts and program eliminations within the 
Department that he was nominated to head. His response was telling. 
Governor Perry said: ``Well, Senator, maybe they'll [meaning the Trump 
administration] have the same experience I had and forget that they 
said that.''
  Remember, Governor Perry had originally said that the Department of 
Energy should be eliminated. Governor Perry's ``oops'' answer got a 
laugh at the hearing, but it failed to convince me that he has the 
willingness and fortitude to stand up to the Trump White House on its 
energy policies.
  I also asked Governor Perry if Hawaii could count on his support in 
our efforts to become energy independent and a leader in the clean 
energy economy. Again, Governor Perry said yes, but in the same 
transition memo, the Trump White House proposed eliminating the DOE's 
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy entirely, as I mentioned 
before. It is unclear how Governor Perry could keep his commitment to 
the State of Hawaii and to me if the entire office that is responsible 
for renewable energy is eliminated.
  Many of my constituents share my concerns about Governor Perry. 
Charlotte from Wailuku wrote to me:

       Please do not confirm Rick Perry for US Secretary of 
     Energy. He is not a visionary leader. In Hawaii, we have 
     committed to being 100% carbon emission free by 2045.
       Rick Perry is not the person who can help provide 
     innovation, funding or the tools needed to make this happen.

  I share Charlotte's concerns. We have made so much progress over the 
past 8 years in embracing a clean and renewable energy future, and 
Governor Perry and the Trump administration will work to reverse this 
progress and take us backward.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to explain my opposition to the 
nominations of Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior and Rick 
Perry to be the Secretary of Energy. I have closely reviewed their 
records, testimony, and responses to questions for the record.


                       confirmation of ryan zinke

  Madam President, the Secretary of the Interior is one of the most 
important jobs in the Federal Government and has a far reach when it 
comes to coordinating our Federal policy in the 50 States and U.S. 
Territories for our public lands, parks, and cherished natural 
resources. The Secretary and the Department of Interior are tasked with 
using sound science to manage and sustain America's lands, water, 
wildlife, and energy resources, while honoring our Nation's vital 
obligations and responsibilities to tribal nations. The Secretary of 
Interior also coordinates Federal assistance to the Freely Associated 
States of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the 
Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau under the Compacts of Free 
Association. There are few Cabinet positions with such a wide range of 
management and organization.
  Any nominee for this position should be selected for their commitment 
to protecting our precious resources, as well as their dedication to 
uphold and enforce our environmental laws.
  After reviewing Mr. Zinke's record, there is little doubt that he is 
dedicated to public service and that he has a strong connection to the 
outdoors. However, the Secretary of the Interior has a great 
responsibility as the leading steward of our majestic public lands, the 
champion of our great tribal nations, and the manager and defender of 
our diverse wildlife. I fear that Mr. Zinke may not be fully prepared 
to set aside some of his personal views on the management of our 
resources and consider the views of all Americans as we debate critical 
natural resources issues.
  I enjoyed learning that Mr. Zinke is an admirer of President Teddy 
Roosevelt, a point that has been repeated countless times, and I was 
pleased that he agrees that, yes, President Roosevelt did get it right 
when he placed millions of acres of lands under Federal protection. 
However, I hope that Mr. Zinke will not only study the work that 
President Roosevelt did to instill a conservation ethic in this 
country, but will look more broadly at other individuals whose 
steadfast commitment and dedication to conservation and historic 
preservation have left their mark in Vermont and across the country.
  For instance, Laurance Rockefeller made significant contributions to 
the American conservation movement that had a lasting impact on the 
American landscape. The Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical 
Park in Woodstock, VT, honors not only Rockefeller's dedication to 
conservation, but is also the first national park to tell the story of 
conservation history and the evolving nature of land stewardship in 
America. Conservation of the environment and recreational development 
was a passion to which he dedicated his life. In addition to his work 
in Vermont, he was instrumental in the creation and development of the 
Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming and the Virgin Islands National 
Park on the island of St. John. These three national parks could not be 
more different, but they are each spectacular pieces of our natural 
heritage. This heritage that would not exist today and be available for 
the public to enjoy, had it not been for the vital work of Laurance 
Rockefeller and the Federal investments that have been made in these 
important public lands.
  I hope Mr. Zinke will also study and hopefully visit the Appalachian 
National Scenic Trail, which carves its way not only through Vermont, 
but 13 other States as well. This trail is an amazing footpath for the 
people that traverses over 2,100 miles through wild forests, towns, 
valleys, and mountaintops, and connects a myriad of through-hikers and 
day hikers to our scenic landscape. All of them are able to enjoy the 
important Federal investments in this trail, which is maintained by the 
countless hours of work done every year by devoted volunteers like the 
Green Mountain Club in Vermont.
  Work to build and maintain the Appalachian Trail is not static, nor 
is it complete. There continue to be important investments needed 
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, to acquire land and 
conservation easements to safeguard the trail. There is much needed 
trail maintenance that should be included as part of any infrastructure 
bill the Senate considers. This work is shovel-ready and will have a 
considerable impact in supporting our outdoor economy on which Vermont 
is so dependent.
  Mr. Zinke should also seek out expertise and guidance from the past 
Secretaries of the Interior who have dedicated their lives to this 
work. I hope he will study the exit memo that Secretary Jewell prepared 
on the Department's Record of Progress and the moral imperative the 
Department has to positively impact our American economy, our rural 
communities and cities, and ultimately, the well-being of our planet.
  As Secretary of Interior, Mr. Zinke will oversee a number of ongoing 
debates concerning our fragile public lands, the protection of 
endangered species, and how we respond to climate change. I know that 
there is no single solution that can answer the different land 
management issues facing each region of our country. Many stakeholders 
are constantly engaging the Interior Department and the Senate with a 
wide variety of views on how we should protect, access, and use our 
natural resources. In Vermont, we are deeply concerned about the 
pressure being placed on our natural resources from rapid growth and 
climate change.
  I heard from hundreds of Vermonters concerned about Mr. Zinke's 
nomination and worried that our environmental standards and laws will 
not be enforced for our lands, air, water, and threatened species under 
his leadership. His record has shown an opposition to policies that 
protect valuable

[[Page 3338]]

rivers and streams from polluting coal runoff and a willingness to 
weaken historic laws such as President Teddy Roosevelt's Antiquities 
Act. He even authored a bill that sought to obstruct efforts by the 
Department of the Interior to review and modernize management of our 
Federal energy resources and ensure that taxpayers are fairly 
compensated for their sale. Taxpayers deserve a Secretary of the 
Interior who will work to support the protection of our shared Federal 
resources 100 percent of the time, not one who will actively work to 
weaken or dismantle the powers of protection invested in this 
Department.
  Based on that record, I voted against his nomination. Nonetheless, 
now that Mr. Zinke is the Secretary, I want him to know that I am 
committed to working closely with him on a variety of issues that are 
important to Vermonters and all Americans. I will work with him to 
foster consensus not only in New England, but throughout the country. 
As the Vice Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a member of 
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I am committed to working 
with him to ensure that we protect our Federal lands and continue the 
important conservation ethic of Teddy Roosevelt to permanently protect 
our beautiful and fragile natural resources, while also addressing new 
challenges posed by climate change.
  Madam President, with respect to the nomination of Rick Perry to be 
the Secretary of the Department of Energy, hundreds of Vermonters have 
written to me in opposition. They were concerned that under his 
leadership we will halt the forward progress we have made towards a 
responsible energy strategy for the future of our country. Not only did 
Governor Perry make headlines for famously proposing to abolish the 
Department of Energy, he lacks a background or any true experience on 
the complex scientific and technical issues in the Department of 
Energy's portfolio. This agency must be focused on addressing our 
energy and environmental challenges through transformative science and 
technology solutions; yet Mr. Perry expedited the permitting of coal-
fired electric generating plants and filed suit challenging the 
Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gases 
significantly endanger public health. How can we trust him to lead the 
Energy Department?
  I was pleased that, during his confirmation hearing, Governor Perry 
apologized for suggesting that the entire Department of Energy should 
be abolished. However, he has yet to say that he will fight to maintain 
important offices within the Department, such as the Office of 
Electricity and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. I 
find it hard to see how we can pursue an ``all-of-the-above'' energy 
strategy called for by the administration if so much of the 
Department's capabilities are targeted for elimination. By supporting 
research around wind, solar, and efficiency, offering loan guarantees 
for innovative demonstration projects, and providing expertise and 
support to the private sector in commercializing new research we can 
create American jobs and grow the national economy. Conversely, if we 
turn our back on the future, we are ceding these important and fast 
growing fields of research and production of renewable energy 
technologies to China, the European Union, and other countries at a 
critical time. That would be a monumental mistake to haunt our economy 
for many years.
  Earlier today, I had the chance to talk to a Vermont company that is 
closely watching the work of the Energy Department to advance America's 
clean energy revolution. Northern Power Systems in Barre, VT, has been 
designing and developing wind turbines for almost 40 years and offers 
support services for energy generation needs around the world. Last 
year, they received an award for their increase in exports, but rather 
than selling to an international market they would rather see their 
sales here in the U.S. take off so that they can create more American 
jobs to manufacture American-made wind turbines. Turbines that should 
be installed here to utilize this reliable, abundant, and free resource 
to lower energy costs for Americans.
  It is troubling that Mr. Perry has taken such an aggressive stance 
against the Department of Energy and dismissed large parts of its 
mission. I hope that he will devote himself to learning everything he 
can about the diverse work of the Department and surround himself with 
some of the best public servants and technical experts he can find.
  The last Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, prepared two 
documents that I am hopeful Mr. Perry will study closely. First, the 
Quadrennial Energy Review provides a broad review of federal energy 
policy in the context of economic, environmental, occupational, 
security, and health and safety priorities. The Department also 
prepared an extensive suite of analyses to accompany the Quadrennial 
Energy Review that I know would serve Mr. Perry well as he tries to 
understand the wide array of issues that will come before him at the 
Department.
  I would also recommend that he review the exit memo Secretary Moniz 
prepared, which highlights the responsibilities and opportunities for 
the Department's enduring service to the Nation as our leading science, 
technology, and innovation agency. The Department has an extraordinary 
span of responsibilities from energy and the environment, to cyber 
security, science and national security, and it must collaborate with 
other agencies like the Defense Department and our intelligence 
community.
  I remain committed to supporting and protecting the essential mission 
of the Department of Energy in order to move us forward with 2lst 
century jobs and make needed investments in our electricity grid, clean 
energy, and energy efficiency that will save American consumers and 
businesses money.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I am strongly opposed to the nomination of 
Rick Perry to be the Secretary of Energy.
  While Governor Perry has a long record of public service, he is the 
wrong choice to lead the Department of Energy. He does not possess the 
technical expertise or necessary qualifications. Moreover, his past 
statements calling for the elimination of the Department and 
questioning the science behind climate change, coupled with his 
reported lack a understanding about the scope of the Department's 
responsibilities, call into question his ability to lead an agency that 
is so critical to our national and economic security.
  What Governor Perry learned during this confirmation process is that 
the Secretary of Energy not only oversees our country's energy 
initiatives and strategies, but is also the steward of our nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The National Nuclear Security 
Administration, or NNSA, a part of the Department of Energy, ensures 
the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons. The 
NNSA brings together exceptionally dedicated men and women from our 
Armed Forces to work alongside some of our best scientists and 
engineers to provide expert advice in nuclear nonproliferation and 
counterterrorism. The Secretary of Energy must understand their work 
and advise the President on our nuclear arsenal capabilities and 
national security issues. Governor Perry has no experience in these 
areas and is not qualified to lead the agency tasked with maintaining 
our nuclear deterrent.
  The Department of Energy also protects our Nation's security by 
strengthening the electrical grid's resilience in the face of natural 
disaster and cyber attacks. Its Office of Electricity works with other 
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and utilities to protect 
the electrical grid; yet the Trump administration has reportedly 
proposed eliminating this office, something which Governor Perry has 
not sought to dispel.
  The Department of Energy leads the country and the world in renewable 
energy generation and energy efficiency. For my home State of Rhode 
Island, renewable energy from the wind, sun, and ocean is not just a 
path to local energy production, but also a source of well-paying jobs 
ranging from steelworkers to scientists. Last year, Rhode Island

[[Page 3339]]

became the first State to build an offshore wind farm, off the coast of 
Block Island, proving that offshore wind can be a viable renewable 
energy source for the United States.
  This technological feat could not have been accomplished without the 
science, engineering, and policy research supported by the Office of 
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. This office drives the research 
in wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean energy that has made affordable 
renewable energy a reality. However, Governor Perry, in his written 
responses, refused to comment on reports that the administration would 
cut funding, or even worse, eliminate this vital department. Failure to 
invest in this department and its research risks our future as an 
energy-producing nation.
  We need a Secretary of Energy who also can effectively manage the 
Office of Science and the National Laboratories, programs that have 
made the United States a global leader in scientific advancement since 
the Manhattan project. The National Laboratory system hosts equipment 
far beyond the capabilities of most universities or companies--such as 
massive particle accelerators, powerful supercomputers, and high-
temperature laser ignition facilities--that are vital to expanding our 
knowledge base and technological advancement.
  The future of many of these energy science programs in the new 
administration is of great concern to the scientific community. The 
same budget recommendations that would eliminate the Office of 
Electricity also showed plans to cut supercomputing research, even as 
China is making large investments to become the world leader in this 
area. Advanced computing is vital to national defense and economic 
competitiveness. Shortsighted budget cuts here, or in any of our basic 
research programs, threaten our Nation's future security and 
prosperity. Governor Perry has not pledged to protect or prioritize any 
of these programs.
  The Department of Energy's leadership in atmospheric science and 
climate change is also threatened. The Trump administration has gone 
beyond merely ignoring the threat of climate change; it has proposed 
cutting off funding to the critical programs that monitor our planet. 
It has also cast doubt that climate data will be accessible and 
available to the public and other researchers. We have already seen an 
unprecedented attempt by the Trump transition team to collect the names 
of scientists who study the consequences of carbon dioxide emissions. 
It appears that, for the first time in the history of the agency, its 
scientists are worried that honestly reporting their findings may be a 
career-ending decision.
  This is an alarming assault on the integrity of American science. The 
Secretary of Energy must be someone who understands science and will 
protect the government scientists who work in the national interest. 
The Secretary must understand and be able to present to the President 
the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is changing and 
that human activities are responsible. All Governor Perry committed to 
do in this and other areas is to learn more about the science.
  This is not sufficient.
  We have been fortunate that recent occupants of this post were not 
learning basic science on the job. Both Presidents Bush and Obama 
filled this post with experts possessing a deep understanding of 
science and technological issues. President Bush appointed Dr. Samuel 
Bodman, who served as a member of MIT's faculty before moving into 
business and government. President Obama appointed a Nobel prize winner 
in physics, Dr. Steven Chu, and a MIT physicist, Dr. Ernest Moniz. The 
result is that, for the past 12 years, the Department of Energy has 
been well equipped to respond to challenges in national security, 
energy, and science.
  We need a Secretary of Energy who can build on that legacy. We need a 
Secretary of Energy who has the technical expertise to oversee our 
Nation's nuclear stockpile, the integrity to protect basic science from 
political attacks, and the willingness to fight for a secure grid and 
renewable energy technology. I am not convinced that Governor Perry has 
those qualifications.
  For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting no.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I will vote against confirming former 
Texas Governor Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy. There are too many 
policies he promoted while he was governor that cause concern. He 
refuses to accept scientific consensus regarding human causes of 
climate change. His support for clean energy and energy efficiency 
seems tenuous, at best, and he is in lock-step with the Trump 
administration's desire to boost fossil fuel production at the expense 
of human health and the environment.
  Governor Perry, while campaigning for the Republican nomination for 
President in 2012, proposed abolishing the agency he has now been 
nominated to run. I appreciate his candor and honesty in repudiating 
that position and acknowledging that he really didn't understand the 
Department of Energy's mission at the time. He has served our Nation 
and Texas as an Air Force pilot, a member of the Texas House of 
Representatives, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner, and the Lieutenant 
Governor and Governor of Texas.
  A key part of DOE's mission has been to promote clean and advanced 
energy technologies, via grants for research and development, and 
through the work of 17 national laboratories. In response to growing 
global demand for clean energy solutions, DOE under the leadership of 
Secretaries Steven Chu and Ernest Moniz launched initiatives to expand 
the global reach of DOE's clean and advanced energy missions.
  In 2009, then-Energy Secretary Chu announced that he would host the 
first Clean Energy Ministerial, CEM, to bring together ministers with 
responsibility for clean energy technologies from the world's major 
economies and ministers from a select number of smaller countries that 
are leading in various areas of clean energy.
  The CEM is a high-level global forum to promote policies and programs 
that advance clean energy technology, to share lessons learned and best 
practices, and to encourage the transition to a global clean energy 
economy. Previous CEMs have yielded remarkable national pledges from 
both the United States and foreign governments to develop and deploy 
clean energy technologies which in the aggregate have played a 
significant role in improving the global market competitiveness of 
clean and renewable energy technologies.
  DOE also serves as the linchpin of the U.S. pledge to Mission 
Innovation, a global initiative involving 20 nations aimed at doubling 
public clean energy research and development.
  The program, spearheaded by President Barack Obama and French 
President Francois Hollande with private sector support from Bill Gates 
via the Breakthrough Energy Coalition. The current U.S. Government 
investment portfolio of more than $5 billion spans the full range of 
research and development activities--from basic research to 
demonstration activities, RD&D. The U.S. Government investment 
portfolio includes programs at 11 agencies, with the largest investment 
at DOE. These programs address a broad suite of low carbon 
technologies, including end-use energy efficiency, renewable energy, 
nuclear energy, electric grid technologies, carbon capture and storage, 
advanced transportation systems, and fuels.
  At DOE, these programs are implemented through a number of mechanisms 
including cost-shared projects with the private sector research and 
development activities at the National Laboratories, grants to 
universities, and support for collaborative research centers targeted 
to key energy technology frontiers. The next planned phase for Mission 
Innovation, as envisioned by former Energy Secretary Moniz, was 
developing an international clean energy consortia, based on the 
principle of sharing institutional and technological resources to 
deploy shared energy solutions across international boundaries. The 
goal was to bring countries of all sizes together to develop, produce, 
and deploy clean energy solutions, with our 17 National

[[Page 3340]]

Research Laboratories at the center of this results-oriented 
partnership.
  Unfortunately, all of this investment and America's ability to lead 
and profit from the clean energy revolution is in jeopardy. There is no 
credible reason to believe that former Governor Perry or President 
Trump appreciate the U.S. interest in growing clean energy research and 
cooperation. President Trump deliberately ignores the significant 
growth of solar energy in the U.S. Human health, the environment, and 
America's global competitiveness will suffer as a result of this 
backwards ideological outlook on U.S. energy research, development, and 
production.
  There were significant investments in wind energy in west Texas while 
Mr. Perry was Governor, but he also tried to fast-track 11 new coal-
fired power plants in the State, a plan the courts ultimately scrapped.
  During Mr. Perry's two unsuccessful runs for the Republican 
Presidential nomination in 2012 and 2016, he consistently recited 
popular tropes coined by climate change denialists. For instance, in 
his book, ``Fed Up'' former Governor Perry called the science behind 
climate change a ``contrived, phony mess.'' During his 2012 campaign, 
former Governor Perry accused climate scientists of manipulating data 
in order to receive funding for their projects. While he was Governor, 
his administration deleted all references to climate change from a 
report about sea level rise in Galveston Bay.
  I am also concerned that, during the Perry administration, Texas 
dropped from 11th down to 27th in the American Council for an Energy 
Efficient Economy's ranking of State energy efficiency policies. Under 
his watch, Texas filed suit in 2012 challenging the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gases significantly 
endanger public health.
  Under his watch, Texas sued EPA a dozen times between 2008 and 2011.
  According to press reports, the Trump administration may eliminate 
several DOE offices, including the Office of Electricity and the Office 
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
  Former Governor Perry was asked about these reports during his 
confirmation hearing but didn't commit to fighting for the offices or 
the vital programs they administer.
  Former Governor Perry was also an active member of the Outer 
Continental Shelf Governors Coalition, OCSGC. While the OCSGC supports 
offshore wind development, its primary purpose is to promote oil and 
gas production on OCS lands, including the mid-Atlantic, and expand 
revenue sharing for interested States. So States to the south of 
Maryland may push for OCS oil and gas production and reap increased 
benefits from it at the expense of all taxpayers. But if there is an 
oil spill that hits Maryland's coastline and enters the Chesapeake Bay, 
it will be our fishing and tourism industries that suffer.
  For all of these reasons, I will vote against confirming former 
Governor Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I oppose the nomination of Governor 
Rick Perry to be Secretary of the Department of Energy, a Department 
that he called for eliminating in 2011. After briefings on the 
Department's mission and programs, Governor Perry came to ``regret'' 
that position, but his short education on his prospective job is not 
enough to prepare him for its complexity and importance.
  The Department of Energy is a home of innovation and, critically, the 
Federal agency that manages the safety and reliability of our nuclear 
arsenal. The last two Secretaries of Energy were physicists.
  According to the Dallas Morning News: ``In all of the department's 
missions, science is front and center. But during his 14 years as 
governor, Perry built a questionable record when it comes to science. 
He has a pattern of supporting offbeat medical theories while 
dismissing the established science on climate change. And his record of 
using public funds to boost technology and research in Texas is 
littered with poor management and allegations of cronyism.''
  In one example, a 2010 Dallas Morning News investigation discovered 
mismanagement and political influence in the Texas Emerging Technology 
Fund, which Governor Perry established to provide funding to high-tech 
startups. The Dallas Morning News reported that the fund awarded more 
than $16 million to companies with connections to large campaign 
donors. A company in which an old college friend and donor invested 
received $2.75 million. Another company, where an investor had given 
more than $400,000 to Governor Perry's campaigns, received $1.5 
million. A company founded by a former Perry appointee got $4.5 
million.
  The Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Texas House Speaker 
made the Emerging Technology Fund's decisions based on input from an 
advisory committee that operated in secret and did not take minutes. 
Its recommendations to the Governor were not public. This unusual 
decisionmaking process, with ultimate power vested in elected officials 
rather than technical experts, is deeply troubling. As Secretary of 
Energy, Governor Perry would be charged with managing a number of grant 
and loan programs aimed at developing the next generation of energy 
technologies.
  Governor Perry has also failed to commit to funding for ARPA-E and 
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. These programs 
are essential to ensuring that the United States is a leader in the 
21st century energy economy and confronts the critical challenge of 
climate change.
  I am deeply concerned by Governor Perry's limited experience with our 
Nation's nuclear program. While he did advocate a low-level nuclear 
waste repository in his State, he has no experience with nuclear 
weapons. His inexperience is particularly problematic when the 
President he would serve has also appeared confused by issues 
surrounding the nuclear triad and has inaccurately said that the United 
States has ``fallen behind on nuclear weapons capacity.''
  The United States is engaged in a $1 trillion program to refurbish 
our nuclear weapons systems, a process that should be tightly 
controlled. We should be reducing, not expanding, the number of nuclear 
weapons in the world. President Trump has questioned the New START 
Treaty, a critical tool to decrease nuclear weapons in both the United 
States and Russia. He glibly and irresponsibly called for ``an arms 
race,'' even though the United States and Russia already control 95 
percent of the world's nuclear weapons and each have enough to destroy 
the world many times over.
  The Secretary of Energy needs to have a clear vision to manage our 
nuclear arsenal and ensure that the President fully understands our 
capabilities and their implications for national security and 
international peace. There is nothing in Governor Perry's record or 
testimony that indicates that he is prepared for this job.
  Governor Perry may have considered the Department of Energy 
insignificant enough to forget during his Presidential run, but its 
mission is essential to the safety and security of the American people. 
Between our national labs and research and loan programs, it fosters 
greater economic competitiveness and discovers new technologies to 
drive energy independence and solutions to climate change. I do not 
believe that Governor Perry is prepared to manage the Department and 
provide thoughtful counsel to the President, and thus I must vote 
against his nomination today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Georgia.


                          The Attorney General

  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in defense of a dear 
colleague of ours who is now the Attorney General of our Nation, Jeff 
Sessions. He is my friend. More importantly, he is a former colleague 
of this very body. He is a man of integrity. He is a man of principle. 
I trust him, and I take him at his word.
  Furthermore, he has repeatedly said just today that he will, in fact, 
recuse himself if and when it becomes appropriate. In my opinion, it is 
not appropriate right now, but if it ever were to become appropriate, 
he has said, without hesitation, that he would.

[[Page 3341]]

  I have really never witnessed anything quite like this in my brief 
time here in the Senate. The last 2 years have been very interesting, 
but never have I seen the hypocrisy that we see going on around this 
one issue.
  It is increasingly clear that the minority party is singularly 
focused on sabotaging this new administration at every turn, and today 
is no exception. They have exercised procedural rules in the Senate 
time and again, beyond the intent of the Founders' design, in order to 
stop President Trump from even getting his team in place--his very 
Cabinet. Our President today, as we stand here in this well, cannot 
have a staff meeting because he doesn't have all of his Cabinet members 
in place.
  As for the Cabinet members who have been confirmed, the minority 
party seems equally fixated on finding any red herring they can 
ultimately find to undermine the individual's character. We have 
literally reached the point where Members of this body are slandering 
former colleagues for having and taking the same opportunities afforded 
to them.
  This morning, my colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri, tweeted 
that she had never, ``EVER'' met with or taken a call from the Russian 
Ambassador. But her own Twitter account proved that she has at least 
twice in the last 4 years.
  Thirty Members of this body, as a matter of fact, met with a Russian 
Ambassador and Ambassadors from other nations in 2015 for a sales pitch 
on President Obama's deal with Iran. Many of them, including the senior 
Senator from Missouri, were open supporters at that time of candidates 
in the President's race.
  In the process of this hypocrisy, the minority party is prohibiting 
us from taking action on legislation that would solve many of the 
problems that have manifested themselves over the previous 8 years.
  Make no mistake, Russia is a traditional rival whose actions pose a 
definite threat to global security and even our own security here at 
home. Their actions over the last 8 years have helped destabilize 
Eastern Europe and the Middle East. It was the inaction and refusal to 
lead of the past administration--a policy that the minority party 
followed hook, line, and sinker--that created a power vacuum around the 
world and allowed this Russian resurgence.
  I have said this repeatedly, and I am going to continue to do so. 
Until there is definite proof that Russians changed a single vote from 
Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, I will be focused on one thing; that 
is, doing exactly what the American people sent us here to do. I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same, which is to not engage in 
political theater for the sake of partisan politics, but to work 
together to get America back to work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                         Texas Independence Day

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Texas Independence 
Day.
  One hundred eighty-one years ago, 59 delegates met in Independence 
Hall at Washington-on-the-Brazos to risk everything to make freedom a 
reality for generations of Texans to come.
  Today, I continue on a tradition started by the late Senator John 
Tower and carried on by Members of the Texas delegation to read the 
words of a 26-year-old Lieutenant Colonel, William Barret Travis, who 
at the time was under siege by the forces of Antonio Lopez de Santa 
Anna.
  On February 24, 1836, Travis penned the following immortal letter:

       To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World--Fellow 
     Citizens & compatriots--
       I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under 
     Santa Anna--I have sustained a continual Bombardment & 
     cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man--The enemy has 
     demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison 
     are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken--I have 
     answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still 
     waves proudly from the walls--I shall never surrender or 
     retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of 
     patriotism & of everything dear to the American character, to 
     come to our aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving 
     reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or 
     four thousand in four or five days. If this call is 
     neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as 
     possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due 
     to his own honor & that of his country--Victory or Death.
       Signed:
       William Barret Travis.

  That same love of ``life, liberty, and property of the people'' that 
spurred the Texans at the Alamo and throughout the revolution still 
lives in each Texan today.
  I think it is particularly appropriate that right now this body will 
be confirming former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to be the Secretary of 
Energy. That is fitting to the spirit of freedom and independence of 
Texans.
  Texans fought for it, they died for it, and we owe it to their 
sacrifice to carry the torch of freedom for future generations, and we 
will.
  To all Texans: Happy Independence Day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is reminded that it is a violation 
of rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate to impute to another 
Senator or Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a 
Senator.
  The Senator from Florida.


                          Remembering Doug Coe

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, America lost one of our best friends, 
well-known to us in the Washington, DC, area.
  Doug Coe, a disciple of a fellow named Abraham Vereide, over a half 
century ago came from Oregon to minister the Gospel to the Government 
of the United States. He has been doing that for over a half a century.
  Doug, well-known to us in the Congress for so many years, always was 
bringing other people to the fore, and he always stood in the back. He 
encouraged so many of us to have fellowship together, to meet with each 
other, especially to have a meal together, to enjoy each other, and to 
do this in the Spirit of the Lord, and particularly the Spirit of 
Jesus. Because of that, he made so many friends all over the world.
  This was a man whose religion brought people together across 
religions, not dividing us, as is so often the case. In Doug's 
spirituality, he could bring people of all faiths together in unity and 
understanding through the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
  I have just come from the cemetery where Doug has been laid to rest. 
He is so well-known around here in the spirit of President Eisenhower's 
suddenly calling up a couple of his friends in the Senate and saying: 
Please come down here and visit with me; this is the loneliest house in 
America. That started the annual Prayer Breakfast, and, of course, that 
Prayer Breakfast has been held ever since, once a year, with the 
President, the Congress, the President's Cabinet, the Vice President, 
the Joint Chiefs, the diplomatic corps. Now over 150 nations attend 
that annual National Prayer Breakfast. It is really an international 
Prayer Breakfast.
  Just this past one that was held in the first week of February indeed 
had a couple of heads of state, including His Majesty King Abdallah of 
Jordan. You wonder, how could a Muslim, who traces his roots all the 
way back--his lineage--to the Prophet Mohammed come to a group 
celebrating a Prayer Breakfast that generally identifies with the 
Christian faith? Well, that is the unique unity of all of these Prayer 
Breakfasts that are handled and held all over the world.
  The Abrahamic faiths coming from the original single God, from which 
the seed of Abraham had not only the Jewish religion, the Muslim 
religion, and the Christian religion--in that, Doug Coe found unity. So 
all of these years he spent organizing the National Prayer Breakfast.
  Doug lived through this last one. He wasn't able to attend, but he 
was holding court over in Northern Virginia as so many of the 
international guests came to Washington for that annual celebration.
  We just laid Doug to rest today. Tomorrow, there will be a memorial 
service for him at a huge megachurch to try to accommodate the size of 
the audience that will be there out in Northern Virginia.
  When this Senator first came to Congress many, many years ago, Doug 
Coe was the one who came to me and said:

[[Page 3342]]

What I want you to do is I want you to get two Democrats and two 
Republicans, and I want you all to come together each week--breakfast 
or lunch--meet faithfully, read the Scriptures, enjoy each other's 
company, and then pray together.
  We did that faithfully for 10 of the 12 years I was in the Congress. 
One of our Members was elected to the Senate at the time, and therefore 
he arranged for us to have one of the hideaways. As a matter of fact, 
it was Senator Mark Hatfield's hideaway that we would meet in and have 
the luncheon so that if we had to go vote, we were close to the Senate 
Chamber for him or close to the House Chamber for us.
  Over the years, what has happened is these little groups that meet in 
the House on Thursday morning and the Senate on Wednesday morning, 
faithfully, they have gone across the globe and started other Prayer 
Breakfasts. That is why there are over 150 nations that now come 
annually to the National Prayer Breakfast. That is all because of our 
friend Doug Coe.
  Doug Coe was never up front speaking. It was the President and a 
guest speaker who was not a religious person. This year, we made an 
exception. The Senate invited the Senate Chaplain Barry Black to give 
the main address, other than the President's address. You never saw 
Doug Coe at the dais. Doug was always quietly in the background 
meeting, extending the hand of friendship, extending his love, 
representing the values he spoke.
  The Good Book tells us a lot of stories about those values. It also 
indicates that as someone put it in the street language of today, I 
would rather see a sermon than hear one any day.
  By the example Doug Coe lived, he taught us how to live. God bless 
you, Doug Coe. You have done so much for so many.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Remembering Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise with a heavy heart to mark the 
passing of a pillar of the Arizona law enforcement community. When 
people think of the Old West, they often picture a Stetson-wearing 
lawman sitting astride his horse, keeping watch over his community.
  For generations of residents in Southwestern Arizona, that lawman was 
Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden. With his towering frame and trademark 
mustache, Sheriff Ogden looked every bit the part. Despite having an 
imposing physical presence, Sheriff Ogden was a kind, compassionate 
man, beloved by his deputies and celebrated by his community.
  After 4 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps, 
Ralph Ogden began his 42-year law enforcement career as a dispatcher 
and a jailer in Parker, AZ. A dedicated public servant, he would 
eventually serve as chief deputy for 12 years. Ralph would go on to be 
elected to five consecutive terms as sheriff, with his 20-year tenure 
the longest ever in Yuma county history.
  Sheriff Ogden always understood the importance of getting to know the 
community he served. He encouraged his employees to get involved in 
charities, religious groups, and service organizations. He valued 
teamwork. He recognized that no one can succeed on their own. This 
philosophy of always having some other person's back was something he 
carried with him throughout his time in the sheriff's office, and it 
was reflected in the way he treated those around him.
  I was fortunate to get to know Ralph over the last few years and 
learned a lot of what I know about the border and about law enforcement 
from that great man.
  Sheriff Ogden was known to write personal birthday and anniversary 
cards for each of his employees, just to show that he valued their 
service and their friendship and to show they were important to him.
  When asked about the benefits of serving law enforcement, Sheriff 
Ogden said that when you go home tired and beat after a long day, you 
sleep well knowing that you did some good. Sheriff Ralph Ogden did a 
lot of good. I know he is resting well.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:35 p.m. 
all but 10 minutes of postcloture time, equally divided in the usual 
form, be considered expired on Executive Calendar No. 9, the nomination 
of Rick Perry to be Secretary of Energy, and that following the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nomination with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me just say briefly, I couldn't be 
happier that my friend, the former Governor of the State of Texas, Rick 
Perry, will be confirmed here shortly as the next Energy Secretary.
  I know, personally, as do 28 million Texans, that Rick Perry has 
dedicated his life to public service. He is best known perhaps for 
serving our State as Governor for a record 14 years. Before that, he 
served in the Air Force. He served as a State representative in the 
Texas Legislature. He was elected as our Agriculture commissioner, then 
served as Lieutenant Governor. As you can tell, the man was born to 
lead.
  During his governorship, Texas became known throughout the country as 
the economic engine that could pull the train of the U.S. economy and 
could weather even the toughest national economic downturn. Under 
Governor Perry's leadership, the State promoted cutting-edge innovation 
and sensible regulation in order to foster an ``all of the above'' 
energy strategy that revolutionized the Texas energy landscape and the 
Texas economy. The State became not just an oil and gas powerhouse but 
the top wind-producing State in the country. We really do believe in an 
``all of the above'' strategy when it comes to energy.
  In short, Rick Perry created an environment where all energy 
producers could not just succeed but really prosper, and that continues 
to serve the people of our State well.
  Texans still benefit from policies that continue to create more 
energy options for families across our State. Put it another way, 
Governor Perry has a very strong track record when it comes to 
promoting energy in a way that makes everybody better off. I have no 
doubt Governor Perry will take to the rest of the country these same 
principles that led to the Texas success story, opening America to a 
new energy renaissance.
  I look forward to voting to confirm him in just a few minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


            Calling for the Appointment of a Special Counsel

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in the minutes remaining before this 
vote, I want to briefly call attention to an impending constitutional 
crisis we are facing in this Chamber and in this country as a result of 
recent revelations coming to our attention, literally within the last 
24 hours, about contacts between now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, 
our former colleague, and the Russian Ambassador.
  Nearly 2 months ago, my Judiciary colleagues and I were told by then-
Senator Sessions--and the Presiding Officer is on the Judiciary 
Committee. We were told in no uncertain terms that he ``did not have 
communications with the Russians,'' and we took him at his word.
  Last night, we learned that Senator Sessions' statement was 
inaccurate. These inaccurate, possibly intentionally false, statements 
misled us.

[[Page 3343]]

They misled me, personally, and I feel they failed to provide the whole 
truth about his communications with and ties to the Russians, likely on 
behalf of the Trump campaign. These contacts were in the midst of an 
unprecedented attack on our democracy, an act of cyber warfare against 
our democratic institution that not only violated our law but subverted 
our electoral process.
  The potentially false statements on this topic by then-Senator 
Sessions were not only deeply relevant and critically important in 
their own right, but they leave us with the question: What else is 
missing or misleading in that testimony, and the consequential 
questions about his fitness to lead the Department of Justice must be 
answered.
  Unless Attorney General Sessions can provide a credible explanation, 
his resignation will be necessary. Senator Sessions' false statements 
heighten my deep concern about credible allegations that the Trump 
campaign, the transition team, and the administration officials have 
colluded with the Russian Government, not only in actions prior to the 
election but possibly since then in what may amount to a coverup. 
Unless the whole truth is uncovered--and if there is a coverup, truly 
the adage will be fulfilled that the coverup is as bad as the crime. 
The only way to deter Russian aggression and continued cyber attacks on 
our democracy is to uncover the truth and deter this kind of aggression 
in the future.
  At the time of his meetings with the Russian Ambassador, Senator 
Sessions was chairman of the Trump campaign's National Security 
Advisory Committee. Ambassador Kislyak is, of course, the same 
individual whose repeated covert contacts with former LTG Michael 
Flynn, President Trump failed to disclose both to the American public 
and to his own Vice President. General Flynn's failure to make those 
disclosures led to his own termination as National Security Advisor.
  Contacts between these two men would raise concerns under any 
circumstances, but Senator Sessions' decision to, in effect, conceal 
them makes them even more troubling. I use that word with regret 
because I sat in the committee hearing as he answered those questions, 
and, personally, I can reach no other conclusion than to say he must 
have intended to conceal them and hide them from us as committee 
members.
  The Attorney General, who is the most important law enforcement 
official in our country, must be held to an even higher standard. The 
sudden disclosure that he met repeatedly with the Russian Ambassador 
after denying under oath any such contact, gives us all the more 
reason--indeed compelling evidence--that a special counsel is 
necessary, and necessary now, to investigate Russian ties and contacts 
with the Trump campaign.
  I have called for such a special counsel or prosecutor for weeks now 
and led a letter with more than 10 of my colleagues asking that 
Attorney General Sessions designate such a special prosecutor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 2 
more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  I want to make sure we do have locked in at 1:45 a vote on 
confirmation of Rick Perry to be Secretary of Energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We do.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. As long as I still have about a minute prior to that 
vote, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I will end my remarks within a minute.
  In short, over the past weeks, I have called repeatedly for a special 
counsel. My view is that now-Attorney General Sessions must be brought 
back before the Judiciary Committee and provide an explanation. The 
lack of a credible explanation makes his resignation necessary, and his 
denial of contacts raises serious and troubling questions about the 
process that led to his confirmation. Absent swift action by a special 
counsel, evidence of this troubling conduct will be at high risk of 
concealment by the very agency, the Department of Justice, entrusted by 
the American people to seek and uncover the truth. An impartial, 
objective, comprehensive, and thorough investigation by a special 
prosecutor is unquestionably necessary now, and I hope we will have 
bipartisan support for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we near the vote on the nomination 
of Governor Rick Perry to be our next Secretary of Energy, I want to 
again reiterate my support for his confirmation.
  As I mentioned earlier, Governor Perry has devoted his life to public 
service. During his 14 years as Governor of Texas, he championed an 
``all of the above'' energy strategy, and led his State to tremendous 
economic growth. He was a good steward of the environment as he worked 
to find ways to grow the economy and worked toward achieving major 
reductions in emission levels in the State of Texas.
  As I said this morning, Governor Perry is a principled leader. He 
will set a good direction for the Department of Energy. I am confident 
he will pursue scientific discovery, promote innovation, be a good 
steward of our nuclear weapons stockpile, and make progress on the 
cleanup of our legacy sites, which we recognize are very important. He 
will help us build the infrastructure we need to become a global energy 
superpower and partner with States, like my State of Alaska, that 
suffer from very high energy costs.
  He has a strong record. Governor Perry gets results. He is a 
competent manager and I think a proven leader. I am pleased to be able 
to support his confirmation. I know Members from both sides of the 
aisle agree. I think he will be a good addition to our new President's 
Cabinet, and I would urge that all Members support his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, speaking in opposition to the Perry 
nomination, I would say this: We need an Energy Secretary for the 21st 
century, one who will help protect us by fighting for an electricity 
grid that will make our entire Internet economy more reliable and safe 
from cyber attacks. We need someone who is invested in an energy 
efficiency strategy that will save our businesses money and make them 
competitive.
  The last two Presidents made energy efficiency a key priority--
President Bush by advocating for plug-in vehicles and energy efficiency 
legislation and President Obama, who made a major investment in the 
smart grid and made energy efficiency and creating clean energy jobs a 
top priority for the Nation.
  Governor Perry has not committed to those same principles, to move us 
forward into the 21st century energy economy. We don't want this part 
of our economy to be left behind to our international competitors.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose his nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Perry 
nomination?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

[[Page 3344]]



                       [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Ex.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--37

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Isakson
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
nomination, and I move to table the motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________