[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11217-11224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the 
Bush nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of John 
Kenneth Bush, of Kentucky, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
Sixth Circuit.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a few 
minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, my colleagues and I have been on this floor 
for the last 7 years talking about the problems with ObamaCare and the 
need to address them.
  In the early days, when ObamaCare was still being cobbled together, 
we talked about individuals losing their coverage. Promises were made 
that if you liked the plan you had, you could keep it. That turned out 
to be a broken promise.
  In 2009 and 2010, we talked about premiums skyrocketing. Today, we 
are still talking about it. Premiums are more than 100 percent higher 
in Wyoming today than they were when the law was passed. Our insurer 
has fortunately been more conservative in their approach. So premiums 
didn't spike the way they did in other States.

[[Page 11218]]

  I usually enjoy being right, but in this case, I am very sad to have 
watched the worst possible scenario play out. Time after time, 
President Obama was faced with problems in implementation and in 
outcomes, and he would dismiss them by saying: ``It just needs more 
time,'' or, as this cartoon shows, ``it just needs a tune up.''
  We and the American people gave it time and money--specifically, 7 
years and hundreds of billions of dollars. We are now left trying to 
pick up the pieces of health insurance markets all across the country.
  You can see here that this ambulance is ObamaCare. Behind it is its 
engine and other key components, and they have completely fallen apart. 
That is the private insurance market today. The part you don't see here 
is that there is a patient in the back of this ambulance. This isn't 
just about politics. This is about real people and whether they can 
afford an insurance premium that is in some cases higher than their 
rent or their mortgage payments each month.
  Even before its passage, my Republican colleagues and I talked about 
the danger that ObamaCare posed to private insurance markets.
  Insurers have already left the market in droves. In Wyoming, we are 
down to one carrier. We lost the others to the economics of ObamaCare, 
and we will be lucky to keep the one we have. I know many people in our 
country are going to be in the position of having no insurers offering 
plans in their county.
  How could this happen? It has happened because of politics being put 
before patients and an unwillingness to take on the hard task of fixing 
something that you have sold as the perfect solution.
  I can tell you that healthcare isn't a simple issue. It is incredibly 
complex and, really, there is no one right way to tackle it. I was the 
ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee 
when ObamaCare passed. We worked hard to find common ground. When it 
became clear that there was not a reciprocal commitment to that from 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we did work hard to try 
to stop it.
  Now we are finally in a position to do so. We have a President in the 
White House who is committed to repealing and replacing ObamaCare with 
better care before more irreparable harm is done. Republicans have been 
working on an approach that attempts to address both the short-term and 
long-term problems caused by ObamaCare.
  We have problems to solve right now. We are proposing to stabilize 
insurance markets in the short term and to get insurance costs on a 
more manageable trajectory over the longer term. We are striking at the 
heart of ObamaCare by removing its mandates and taxes while putting 
Medicaid on a more sustainable footing.
  Doing this isn't easy. You may have read a little something about the 
challenges of moving a healthcare bill forward, but the alternative is 
to do what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done for 
7 years and watch ObamaCare crater. We don't think that is the right 
thing to do. We think we have an obligation, even if it is not an easy 
vote, to salvage our insurance system.
  Getting something done in Washington isn't always a pretty process, 
but I am proud to be working with the women and men in my conference 
who see that there is something larger at stake than themselves and who 
know that sitting this out means more harm and, perhaps, harm that 
can't be undone later.
  I will keep working. I am committed to passing the best product that 
we can deliver for the people of Wyoming and for our whole country. I 
look forward to continuing to work together to repeal ObamaCare and 
replace it with policies that will truly improve healthcare in America. 
I hope my colleagues will join me in this worthy endeavor.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, several of my Democratic 
colleagues spoke in opposition to the nomination of John Bush to serve 
on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. They were particularly concerned 
about his activities outside of the courtroom, especially his personal 
blog posts. The comments of my friend, the junior Senator from 
Minnesota, were representative of their concern.
  He reminded us that he has been serving on the Judiciary Committee 
for 8 years. He said that by confirming someone to the Federal bench 
like Mr. Bush, who has blogged about controversial political and policy 
matters, the Senate would be doing something unprecedented. 
Specifically, my friend from Minnesota--in angst--said, ``I don't think 
we have been here before.''
  ``I don't think we have been here before,'' he said. I would 
encourage my friend to think a little harder about his tenure on the 
Judiciary Committee. Just a few years ago, the Senate considered 
President Obama's nomination of Stephen Bough to be a Federal judge in 
Missouri. Mr. Bough had been quite an active blogger himself. His 
blogging and online commentary were not simply confined to political 
satire and sarcasm. His blogging didn't use merely flippant or 
intemperate language. His blogging demonstrated a real and palpable 
animus toward conservatives and Republicans in general, toward elected 
Republicans in particular, and by name--by name. He insulted and 
impugned people from his home State, such as Senators, his Governor, 
the President of the United States, and a Republican nominee for 
President, just to name a few.
  Mr. Bough's posts were truly mean-spirited. It wasn't just that he 
called Republicans ``knuckleheads''--which he did. That was when he was 
feeling especially kind. No, he said specific Republicans were 
``corrupt.'' They had done ``evil things''--``evil things.'' I can go 
on and on about his corrosive rhetoric.
  He approvingly posted an article describing how San Francisco was 
contemplating naming a sewage plant after President Bush as a suitable 
legacy for the President and posted another one that said his Governor 
was highly ``ignorant.''
  His invective was not reserved to members of the political branches. 
He said that his State supreme court was the most corrupt in the 
history of the State. I am not making this up. He is an officer of the 
court, calling the supreme court the most corrupt in the history of his 
State.
  For my Democratic colleagues who now profess to care about the 
judgment of judicial nominees who blog, I submit that impugning the 
integrity of the tribunal that has jurisdiction over their professional 
conduct and law license, as Mr. Bough did, is more than a few tweaks 
shy of exhibiting sound judgment.
  Mr. Bough also implied that President Bush made his Supreme Court 
appointments as some sort of quid pro quo. He harshly criticized 
sitting Supreme Court Justices by name, and he claimed that the 
Republican nominee for President wanted only Federal judges who would 
disregard the law and rule in favor of the ``religious right'' and that 
he was ``sucking up.''
  He made a crude comment about women that I will not repeat.
  Now, some of our Democratic colleagues have criticized John Bush 
because he said that he would try hard to be impartial as a judge. By 
contrast, in one of his blog posts, Stephen Bough flat-out said that 
he, himself, ``shouldn't be a judge.'' This is commentary on himself. 
But every one of our Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee 
at the time, including our friend from Minnesota, obviously disagreed 
with his own judgment about himself. They all voted for him, which is 
especially curious in hindsight, given the superior weight our 
Democratic colleagues now place on blog posts. Only one Member of the 
Democratic conference voted against Mr. Bough. These are many of the 
same Democrats, of course, who are supposedly

[[Page 11219]]

aghast--aghast--at the Bush nomination. Mr. Bough is now Federal 
District Court Judge Stephen Bough.
  Finally, I would like to set the record straight on the subject of 
the slur. Mr. Bush did not use the slur in a blog post, and he did not 
use it flippantly. In fact, he said he has never used this term and 
would never use it.
  Rather, Mr. Bush quoted by name someone else--a prominent author who 
had used the slur. Mr. Bush quoted him to show how various authors had 
viewed our hometown of Louisville over time--both those who praised it 
and those who criticized it. In short, Mr. Bush said that he used it to 
show ``the good, the bad, and the ugly.''
  So who was the author he quoted verbatim and by name? Why, it was 
noted liberal Hunter Thompson. I note that Mr. Thompson's use of the 
slur did not prevent liberals, including Democratic officeholders, from 
praising him. In fact, not one but two Democratic Presidential 
candidates went to his funeral--George McGovern and John Kerry.
  The Senate has considered a judicial nominee who did use this slur in 
a blog posting, who actually did use the exact same slur, in fact. The 
judicial nominee was not quoting any literary or published work, and 
this judicial nominee did not use the slur for any critical purpose. 
The judicial nominee used it flippantly and cavalierly. Who was the 
judicial nominee? It was President Obama's judicial nominee and current 
Federal District Court Judge Stephen Bough, who sits on the bench right 
now for life, after being confirmed by the votes of our Democratic 
colleagues.
  I hope I have at least refreshed the memory of my friend from 
Minnesota and some of my other Democratic colleagues.
  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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                Thoughts and Prayers for Senator McCain

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, on a sad note but one always of 
hope when it comes to Senator McCain, his cancer diagnosis sent a shock 
wave through the Senate last night. He is one of my dear friends, as he 
is a dear friend to many in this body, and from the bottom of my heart, 
I wish him and his family well. So does every Member of this Chamber. 
The respect that this man has is broad and deep, both based on his 
service to America and on what he has done here in this Chamber.
  I agree with what the majority leader said earlier, in that John 
McCain is an American hero. There is no one who has done more to serve 
his country and this Chamber than Senator McCain. There is no one who 
is more passionate in the defense of our soldiers and in our defense 
than Senator McCain.
  The same courage that he showed as a soldier he showed here. John 
McCain and I led a group to deal with immigration reform. He had to 
take so many tough positions to do what was right. He was fearless. His 
word was good. He was good at compromising, and he was good at making 
his views known.
  With that bill, which passed this body with 67 or 68 votes--a large 
number of Democrats and Republicans--had it become law, our country's 
economy would have been better, and our security would have been better 
because it was so tough on the border. We would have been in a better 
place for it had that bill passed.
  The point I want to make is not with regard to the bill but to 
McCain--how we were in rooms for hours and hours, day after day, and we 
got to see the mettle of the man. Boy, the more you knew him, the 
better he looked, and the better he was.
  So we know that, against this new battle, Senator McCain will fight 
in the only way he knows how--with every fiber of his being. We wish 
him well. Our prayers are for him and his family. We hope that he joins 
us very soon because this country needs John McCain now more than ever.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, on the issue of healthcare, yesterday President Trump 
seemed intent on pushing forward the Republicans' failing healthcare 
plan with a vote sometime early next week. We have been on the topic of 
healthcare for 7 months, and I am still not sure which version of the 
Republican plan we will be voting on.
  Will it be repeal and replace? Will we be voting on the Senate bill 
that would cause 22 million Americans to lose their coverage and that 
would cause costs to go up and care to go down? Will it be with the 
Cruz amendment, which would annihilate the ``preexisting condition'' 
requirement, in quoting my friend Senator Grassley? Or will it be 
repeal without replace, which would cause our healthcare system to 
implode, creating chaos, which would cause millions to lose insurance 
and millions more to have their coverage diminished?
  The CBO confirmed last night that repeal without replace would cause 
32 million Americans--that is about a 10th of the country--to lose 
their insurance and would cause premiums to double after 10 years.
  It was a horrible idea in January and was rejected, wisely, by our 
Republican colleagues. We were not involved. The door was closed on us 
on January 4. It is a horrible idea now.
  So will that be the focus next week or will it be a new bill that has 
more money thrown in, as some have suggested--the same core bill of 
devastating cuts to Medicaid, tax breaks for the wealthy and the 
special interests, the cruel Cruz amendment, and an extra $2 billion 
slush fund? Is that going to be the bill?
  We Democrats do not know what our Republican friends are planning to 
vote on next week. I will bet that many Republicans do not know yet 
either. What we do know is that a $200 billion slush fund, tacked onto 
a bill that would gut Medicaid and other services by well over $1 
trillion, is like putting an old bandaid on a bullet wound. The $200 
billion in additional funding would only offset 17 percent of the 
bill's total cuts to coverage. It would not come anywhere close to 
covering the wound that the Republicans are inflicting on Medicaid, on 
Americans in nursing homes, on Americans in rural areas, on those who 
are suffering from opioid addiction. It just will not work, and repeal 
without replace is even worse. All of the options are horrible options 
for the Republican Party, but, more importantly, they are horrible 
options for the American people.
  It is time to start over. It is time for our Republican colleagues to 
drop this failed approach and work with Democrats on actually improving 
our healthcare system. They closed the door on us on January 4 in 
passing something called reconciliation, which basically says: We do 
not need the Democrats; we will do it ourselves. Let them open the door 
now that they have seen that that failed approach does not work. I 
outlined three specific, nonideological proposals yesterday that we 
could work on together, right now, to stabilize the marketplaces and 
help bring down premiums. I believe they would pass quickly. My 
Republican friends do not seem to know what to do. My suggestion is to 
drop these failed ideas and work with Democrats on the commonsense, 
nonideological solutions that we Democrats have offered.
  Here is one more point. I have heard some of my colleagues say they 
may vote for the motion to proceed next week because they are in favor 
of debate. I will remind them that the rules under reconciliation only 
allow for 20 hours of debate to be equally divided between the parties 
and 1 minute of debate allowed per amendment. That is not debate. The 
idea that you would vote on the motion to proceed in order to have a 
healthcare debate is absurd. If my colleagues want to debate 
healthcare, they should vote no on the motion to proceed and urge their 
leader to hold a real debate--in committees, in public hearings, on the 
floor, and through regular order, which is a process that they have 
spurned for 7 months--not 10 hours for each party, with 1 minute per 
amendment, on such an important proposal. That is not a

[[Page 11220]]

debate. It is the legislative equivalent of ``Beat the Clock.'' This is 
serious business--the health and welfare of the American people--not 
some game show.


                         Trade and Outsourcing

  Mr. President, just as the administration is flailing and failing on 
healthcare, they are failing on trade and outsourcing as well.
  I read today that the administration has failed to secure any 
concessions from China on its dumping of excess steel and aluminum in 
our markets, which is killing jobs in my State and in many others. As 
well, today, the Carrier plant at which President-Elect Trump tweeted 
about saving jobs just laid off 300 workers in Indiana and moved the 
positions to Mexico. It is exactly 6 months to the day since President 
Trump took office. It is a shame that we are losing these good-paying 
American jobs. Despite all of the President's tough talk on trade and 
his Commerce Secretary's ``100 days of trade talks'' plan, the loss of 
these jobs shows that, in 6 months, the Trump administration has been 
unable to actually deliver results on trade, with the exception of the 
first U.S. beef shipment to China, which was the result of an agreement 
that President Obama helped to broker before the end of his term. The 
Trump administration has made few inroads in reducing our trade deficit 
or in making it easier for our companies to compete abroad.
  It is all well and good to tweet about a few hundred jobs saved at 
the Carrier plant, as the President-elect did last December--and I am 
glad he saved them--but as President, you have to actually take strong 
action, not go to one plant. You need policies that will protect 
millions of workers from the rapacious policies of China and other 
countries. Making America great again requires more than 140 characters 
per issue. The 338 jobs that are leaving Carrier today are a reminder 
that, when it comes to actual substance and policy, the Trump 
administration has done very little to change the game on trade to keep 
jobs in the United States--another broken promise to the American 
worker.
  Mr. President, I reiterate my remarks from yesterday on the 
nomination of John Bush to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Many of 
my colleagues have been down on the floor and have expressed just how 
distressing and damaging this nomination will be.
  His extreme record demonstrates that John Bush simply does not have 
the temperament to be an impartial Federal judge--the very least our 
system requires. Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose his 
confirmation.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                Thoughts and Prayers for Senator McCain

  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I thank our leader, Senator Schumer, for 
his remarks.
  I join with Senator Schumer and all of our colleagues in wishing the 
very best to our tough and resilient American hero and colleague, John 
McCain. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. We need 
him back here as fast as he can get here.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, I also share Leader Schumer's remarks and concerns 
about the current status of the healthcare bill as we understand it.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote down the 
motion to proceed so that we can have regular order and so that we can 
hear from stakeholders and the American people about how changes in 
healthcare would impact them and what ideas they have for us to be able 
to lower costs and make sure that all Americans have access to truly 
affordable, high-quality care.
  Mr. President, I also rise to oppose the nomination of Attorney John 
K. Bush to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  An independent and impartial judiciary is critical to our democracy 
and to our march toward progress. Our Founders established our court 
system to serve as an independent arbiter that would protect the rights 
of every American and ensure equal justice under our laws. 
Unfortunately, it is clear that Mr. Bush lacks the impartiality and 
commitment to equal justice for every American that is needed to 
qualify for a lifetime appointment on the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  President Trump's nomination of Mr. Bush represents yet another 
attempt by this administration to undermine the rights of American 
women to make their own healthcare decisions and to control their own 
destinies. To fully participate not only in our economy but also in our 
democracy, women must be recognized for their capacity to make their 
own healthcare decisions, just as men are, and they must have the full 
independence to do so, just as men do. Mr. Bush has made it clear that 
he fundamentally disagrees with that principle and that he does not 
support a woman's constitutionally protected right to have a safe and 
legal abortion. Hiding behind a pseudonym on an online blog, Mr. Bush 
has gone so far as to compare a woman's right to make her own 
reproductive health decisions to slavery, saying they are ``the two 
greatest tragedies in our country.'' The fact that someone nominated 
for the bench would believe something like this is nothing short of 
appalling.
  Mr. Bush has also criticized essential programs that women and their 
families depend on, referring to programs like the Women, Infants, and 
Children Program--otherwise known as WIC--and grants to combat violence 
against women as ``wasteful.''
  I also have real concerns with Mr. Bush's record when it comes to the 
rights of LGBTQ Americans. Mr. Bush has made clear that he is 
vehemently opposed to marriage equality, calling it a ``no-compromise'' 
position. In 2011, he criticized the State Department for an 
announcement that led to more equal treatment of same-sex parents, and 
he has even used an offensive, anti-gay slur in a quote that he chose 
to use in public remarks.
  Mr. Bush's deeply offensive public statements and his record indicate 
that he is an individual who is focused on extreme partisanship and who 
does not recognize the basic equality of all Americans. His statements 
and his actions tell us that he is not committed to the concept of 
equal justice under our laws. This is unacceptable for someone seeking 
a lifetime appointment to a job that requires sound judgment, 
objectivity, and, more than anything else, an essential commitment to 
fairness.
  I will oppose Mr. Bush's nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you, 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. WHITEHOUSE. 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. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, to the disappointment of the American 
public, the world scientific community, and even to corporate giants 
like Goldman Sachs and Cargill, President Trump recently decided to 
withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. He cited as 
justification a slew of alternative facts. Some of the most egregious 
of these alternative facts came from a National Economic Resource 
Associates--a group we will call NERA in this speech--report that was 
commissioned and promoted by a group that calls itself the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce but fronts for the fossil fuel industry. ``U.S. Chamber of 
Carbon'' might be a better and more accurate name for it.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, so-called, is a heavy hitter in 
Washington. It was the second largest spender of anonymous outside 
money, or dark money, in the 2016 Federal elections, second only to the 
National Rifle Association. In addition to all that political

[[Page 11221]]

election spending, it wields the largest lobbying force on Capitol 
Hill. In 2015, the chamber dropped over $100 million on lobbying.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one of climate action's most 
implacable enemies, as everybody here knows, despite the good climate 
policies of so many companies on its board. Along with Senators Warren, 
Sanders, and others, I examined this inconsistency between the 
positions of the chamber and of its board members in our recent report, 
``The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Out of Step with the American People 
and its Members.''
  Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
excerpts from the report, ``The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Out of Step 
with the American People and its Members.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Out of Step With the American People and 
                              Its Members

       A Report from Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Elizabeth 
     Warren, Barbara Boxer, Bernard Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jeff 
     Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, and Edward Markey

               (Select Climate Change Specific Excerpts)


                           Executive Summary

       The United States Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber), the 
     largest lobbying organization in the country, has used its 
     considerable resources to fight legislation in Congress and 
     Obama Administration actions on tobacco and climate change at 
     home and abroad. A series of 2015 New York Times articles 
     exposed the Chamber's aggressive tactics to help the tobacco 
     industry fight international antismoking laws, regulations, 
     and policies, and described the organization's systematic 
     efforts to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     work to address climate change and carbon pollution. These 
     activities raised questions about the Chamber's policy-making 
     process; one analyst concluded that ``the Chamber is at odds 
     with the interests of some, if not most, of its membership in 
     three other areas: climate change, minimum wages and 
     tobacco,'' and described its advocacy as ``aligned with the 
     small number of companies that are its largest 
     contributors.''
       In response to the 2015 allegations, Senators Sheldon 
     Whitehouse, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer, Bernard Sanders, 
     Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, and Edward 
     Markey examined the positions and actions of Chamber Board 
     members to determine the extent to which the Chamber's 
     activities on tobacco and climate change reflect its Board 
     members' views and interests. The analysis focused on the 108 
     private-sector members of the Chamber's Board of Directors, 
     which the Chamber describes as ``the principal governing and 
     policymaking body of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. . . . 
     [that] determine[s] the U.S. Chamber's policy positions on 
     business issues and advise[s] the U.S. Chamber on appropriate 
     strategies to pursue.'' The findings of this analysis--based 
     on correspondence with the Chamber's Board members and a 
     review of publicly available information on Chamber Board 
     member positions on tobacco and climate change--reveal the 
     following:
       The Chamber's positions and actions on tobacco and climate 
     change are at odds with those of its Board members. 
     Approximately half of the companies on the Chamber's Board of 
     Directors have adopted anti-tobacco and pro-climate positions 
     that contrast sharply with the Chamber's activities. Chamber 
     Board member companies have acknowledged the public health 
     harms of tobacco and support the efforts of their employees 
     to quit smoking. They have also taken public positions and 
     actions in support of efforts to reduce carbon emissions and 
     address climate change. Despite the positions of its Board 
     members, the Chamber opposes efforts in Congress and by the 
     Administration to address these issues.
       Not a single Board member explicitly supported the 
     Chamber's lobbying efforts. In response to inquiries from 
     several senators, 21 Chamber Board members distinguished 
     their actions from the Chamber's on tobacco by describing 
     their own positive efforts, and five respondents 
     distinguished their actions and positions on climate change. 
     Five additional companies on the Chamber's Board explicitly 
     disagreed with the Chamber's positions on tobacco or tobacco 
     lobbying activities. For example, Chamber Board member 
     Celgene stated that it ``[does] not support tobacco use or 
     policies that promote tobacco use.'' Steward Health Care 
     Systems elaborated on its disagreement with the Chamber's 
     actions, saying that it ``was the only company on the Chamber 
     Board that went on record to oppose the initiative.'' Other 
     respondents sidestepped key questions and failed to respond 
     to questions about how they viewed the Chamber's activities. 
     Not one Board member explicitly supported the Chamber's 
     actions on tobacco and climate.
       The Chamber's decision-making process and Board policy 
     decisions are not transparent. Ten Chamber Board members 
     revealed, in their responses to the congressional inquiries, 
     that they had no knowledge of or input into the Chamber's 
     lobbying activities on tobacco or climate issues. For 
     example, Chamber Board member Edward Jones, Inc., indicated 
     that the company ``[was] not advised of any campaigns... [and 
     is] not aware of any processes'' to develop these campaigns. 
     Sempra Energy reported that ``the issues raised in [the] 
     letter have not been discussed during the short time [it has] 
     been a member of the organization.'' Despite the Chamber's 
     description of the Board as its ``principal governing and 
     policymaking body,'' not one Chamber Board member explicitly 
     indicated that they were fully aware of and able to provide 
     their input and views to the Chamber regarding its actions on 
     tobacco and climate.
       The findings in this report raise serious questions about 
     the Chamber's credibility and its actions on tobacco and 
     climate policy, and indicate that the Chamber does not 
     accurately represent the positions, input, and knowledge of 
     its membership.


                            I. Introduction

       The United States Chamber of Commerce is the largest 
     lobbying organization in the country. OpenSecrets, a 
     nonprofit, nonpartisan research group that tracks the effects 
     of money and lobbying, showed that in 2015 alone, the Chamber 
     spent roughly $85 million on lobbying efforts, more than 
     twice the amount spent by the second-highest organization 
     (the National Association of Realtors). During the 2013-2014 
     election cycle, the Chamber spent $35 million on political 
     expenditures (through super PACs, 501(c) organizations, and/
     or political party committees) that were ``outside'' or 
     independent of candidates' campaign committees.
       The Chamber has used its considerable resources to fight 
     legislation and government action on tobacco and climate 
     change at home and abroad. A series of 2015 New York Times 
     articles exposed the Chamber's aggressive activities helping 
     the tobacco industry to fight international antismoking laws, 
     regulations, and policies, and described the organization's 
     systematic efforts to undermine the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's work to address climate change and carbon pollution.
       While the Chamber claims that it ``reflects the grassroots 
     views of the entire business community'' and that it 
     represents the ``interests of more than three million 
     businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions'' when it 
     interacts with Congress, its positions and actions on tobacco 
     and climate do not appear to reflect or communicate the 
     positions of many of its member companies. The following 
     analysis shows that approximately half of the companies on 
     the Chamber's Board of Directors have publicly taken 
     positions on tobacco and climate change that are in conflict 
     with the Chamber's actions and positions. This calls into 
     question the Chamber's allegedly transparent decision-making 
     process, and suggests that the Chamber does not accurately 
     represent the positions of its member companies.
       Moreover, the Chamber's lobbying is at odds with its own 
     public positions. The organization strongly professes that it 
     is anti-tobacco, saying that it ``is not in the business of 
     promoting cigarette smoking at home or abroad, period.'' It 
     also claims to support the environment, saying that it ``has 
     in its public documents, Hill letters and testimony, 
     supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the 
     atmosphere,'' and calling for a ``comprehensive climate 
     change law.'' Plainly, there is a broad gap between the 
     Chamber's stated policies, its Board members' positions, and 
     its actual lobbying activities.


       III. The Chamber's Lobbying on Tobacco and Climate Issues

       When the Chamber weighs in, many in Washington, D.C., 
     listen. The Chamber is the largest lobbying organization in 
     the country and claims to represent the ``interests of more 
     than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and 
     regions'' when it interacts with Congress. OpenSecrets, a 
     nonprofit, nonpartisan research group that tracks the effects 
     of money and lobbying, showed that in 2015 alone, the Chamber 
     spent roughly $85 million on lobbying efforts, more than 
     twice the amount spent by the second-highest organization 
     (National Association of Realtors). During the 2013-2014 
     election cycle, the Chamber spent $35 million on political 
     expenditures (through super PACs, 501(c) organizations, and/
     or political party committees) that were ``outside'' or 
     independent of candidates' campaign committees.
       The Chamber has attacked U.S. climate policies with similar 
     zeal. According to The New York Times, in early 2014, a group 
     of 30 corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists, and Republican 
     political strategists gathered at the Chamber's headquarters 
     to devise legal strategies to dismantle the President's Clean 
     Power Plan--before President Obama had even introduced a 
     draft proposal of it. The Chamber has also been vocal about 
     its opposition to climate action when testifying before 
     Congress. For instance, the Chamber has testified in 
     opposition to the Paris Agreement, despite the fact that many 
     of its Board member companies have pledged to support the 
     goals of the Agreement. Additionally, nearly all of Chamber 
     campaign

[[Page 11222]]

     contributions--94%--have reportedly gone to climate change 
     denier candidates.


                              V. Findings

       Based on the responses to the Tobacco and Climate Letters 
     and public positions and policies of Board members, the 
     report finds that:
       Approximately half of the companies on the U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce's Board of Directors have anti-tobacco and/or pro-
     climate positions.
       None of the respondents to the Tobacco and Climate Letters 
     expressed explicit support for the Chamber's activities, and 
     numerous Chamber Board members distanced themselves from 
     Chamber activities on tobacco or climate.
       The Chamber's decision-making process lacks transparency, 
     even with respect to its Board members. A number of Board 
     members were unaware of key Chamber policymaking and lobbying 
     decisions on tobacco and climate.

                        Climate Change Findings

       Almost half of the Chamber Board members (52 of 108, 48%) 
     have taken public positions supporting efforts to reduce 
     carbon emissions and address climate change, including eight 
     of the companies that responded to the Senate inquiry on 
     Chamber climate policies (see Appendix V). The remaining 
     Board member companies appear to have no public position on 
     climate change as a public health or environmental issue.
       These 52 companies that support efforts to address climate 
     change, have undertaken their own initiatives to reduce 
     carbon emissions, support the EPA's work on climate change, 
     or have publicly committed to support of the Paris Agreement.
       Indeed, many Chamber Board members are national and 
     international leaders on this issue. For example:
       Allstate is a member of the Ceres Company Network, a group 
     of companies that have agreed to improve their environmental 
     and social performance, publicly report on their 
     sustainability practices, and continuously improve their 
     performance and disclosure on sustainability issues. Allstate 
     was also named to the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index 
     (CDLI) from 2008 to 2014 for its efforts to reduce its carbon 
     footprint and transparency on its climate change adaptation.
       AT&T is one of more than 150 companies to have signed on to 
     the American Business Act on Climate Pledge. AT&T has 
     committed to reduce its direct greenhouse emissions by 20 
     percent and reduce its electricity consumption by 2020.
       BMO Financial Group stated that it is ``focused on reducing 
     our environmental footprint, setting clear goals and 
     consistently maintaining carbon neutrality across our entire 
     enterprise.''
       Las Vegas Sands was named to the CDP's ``A list'' in 2015 
     for its efforts to address and disclose corporate climate 
     change information.
       Ryder received the EPA SmartWay Excellence Award in 2013 
     and 2014 in recognition of its efforts to address carbon 
     pollution and emissions.
       Sanofi ``strives to reduce [its] environmental impact, so 
     that [it] can contribute to decreasing the effects of climate 
     change. This includes a two-pronged approach to reduce [its] 
     carbon footprint and to combat diseases directly correlated 
     with climate change.'' Sanofi says that it has reduced its 
     carbon emissions by 60 times, cut transport costs by 50 
     percent, and has set a goal of reducing its water consumption 
     by 25 percent between 2010 and 2020.
       3M is a founding member of the National Climate Coalition. 
     In its 2015 Sustainability Report, 3M touted its ``history of 
     proactive leadership in addressing both the challenges and 
     opportunities presented by climate change and energy 
     conservation.''
       UPS stated it was ``pleased to join 12 other firms at the 
     White House on July 27, 2015, in launching the American 
     Business Act on Climate Change . . . [W]e pledged first to 
     reduce our carbon intensity by 20% by 2020, from a 2007 
     baseline. Second, we plan for our alternative fuel and 
     technology fleet, which will number about 8,000 trucks by the 
     end of the year, to have driven a cumulative 1 billion miles 
     by 2017.''
       No Chamber Board members that responded to the Senate 
     letter explicitly supported the Chamber's lobbying actions on 
     climate policy. Seven respondents to the Climate Letter 
     indicated that they do not agree with every action taken by 
     trade associations of which they are a member, and three 
     companies declined to express a position. Two of the eleven 
     companies that responded to the Climate Letter (Citadel and 
     HCSC) indicated that they were not involved in the Chamber's 
     climate-related activities, and the other nine did not 
     indicate whether they were involved in the Chamber's climate 
     policy decision-making process.
       Despite the fact that nearly half of Chamber Board members 
     have acknowledged the risk of climate change or are actively 
     working to address the risks of climate change, the Chamber 
     has opposed executive action on climate and lobbied heavily 
     in support of legislation undermining climate action, 
     assembling a ``vast network of lawyers and lobbyists ranging 
     from state capitols to Capitol Hill, aided by Republican 
     governors and congressional leaders,'' to oppose President 
     Obama's climate change regulations.


                             VI. Conclusion

       The Chamber claims that it ``reflects the grassroots views 
     of the entire business community when the organization 
     testifies before Congress or regulatory agencies, 
     disseminates reports or statements to the media, or sends 
     comments or letters to Capitol Hill and to policymakers.'' It 
     states that ``everyone involved in the process must help 
     develop positions that benefit the entire business community, 
     rather than any given narrow interest . . . The process must 
     be open and above board.''
       But this investigation finds these claims to be plainly 
     untrue. Despite its claims of a representative policy-making 
     process, the Chamber does not speak for many of its Board 
     members on two of the most pressing public health issues of 
     our time. The discrepancy between how the Chamber and its 
     Board members act on tobacco and climate is stark. Bloomberg 
     columnist Barry Ritholtz contends that it is easy for the 
     Chamber to ignore its numerous member companies that oppose 
     its stance because one third of its revenue comes from just 
     19 companies, many of them in the energy industry.
       Indeed, based on the responses of Chamber Board member 
     companies, the Chamber seems to act at will, without broadly 
     consulting its leading members about fundamental policy 
     positions on which it spends millions of dollars in collected 
     dues.
       Some American business icons have demonstrated leadership 
     by disaffiliating themselves from the Chamber over 
     fundamental policy disagreements. Apple, Exelon, and Pacific 
     Gas and Electric (PG&E), have left the Chamber over its 
     destructive climate policies. Nike left the Board for similar 
     reasons, and other members--Intel, Johnson & Johnson, and 
     Microsoft--publicly disagree with and distance themselves 
     from the Chamber's climate position. And CVS Health withdrew 
     its membership from the Chamber last year due to the group's 
     tobacco lobbying.
       Many Chamber members do good work to address the risks of 
     tobacco and climate change. But too many of these members 
     quietly disapprove of the Chamber's positions without taking 
     action. As long as these Board members lend their tacit 
     support to an organization that spearheads systematic efforts 
     against policies to limit tobacco and climate change, it is 
     difficult to accept their claims that they are anti-tobacco 
     or good on climate.
       We encourage Chamber Board members to stop looking the 
     other way where there is disagreement, and defending their 
     Chamber membership as supporting free speech. This 
     positioning makes it appear as though they're trying to have 
     it both ways and damages their credibility and efforts in 
     support of positive action. These companies should take 
     responsibility for the positions and actions of the Chamber, 
     and use their leverage as an opportunity to shift the tenor 
     of a powerful lobbying force away from harming public health 
     and towards positions that help reduce tobacco use and 
     address the risks of climate change.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. When President Trump announced his withdrawal from 
the Paris Agreement, he used these alternative facts from that chamber-
commissioned NERA report. Here is what Trump said:

       Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the 
     onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United 
     States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 
     2025. . . . This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs.

  End of alternative facts quote.
  This was another assertion:

       By 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by 
     the previous administration would cut production for the 
     following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 
     percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal--and I happen 
     to love the coal miners--down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 
     percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close 
     to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, 
     while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many 
     cases, much worse than that.

  End quote of his alternative facts.
  Countless reviewers, including PolitiFact, Scientific American--that 
known crazy, phony, liberal publication, Scientific American--CNBC, and 
Fortune magazine, fact-checked the President's speech. It did not fare 
well. PolitiFact warned us to ``take these statistics with a grain of 
salt.'' An analysis of the underlying report was done by Kenneth 
Gillingham, an economics professor at Yale University. He pointed out 
that the NERA study made up a hypothetical set of policy actions to 
reach those goals. Those policy actions may well never have been taken 
by anyone to comply with the Paris Agreement, but that was what they 
used. Second, NERA only modeled the cost side.
  You have heard the phrase ``cost-benefit equation.'' They only looked 
at the

[[Page 11223]]

costs. They didn't ever look at the benefit side. This is phony 
accounting when you only look at one side of the ledger.
  NERA, of course, has a history of producing misleading reports for 
its industry sponsors. In 2015, it released a report for the National 
Association of Manufacturers on the proposed ozone standard, claiming 
it would cost as much as $140 billion per year. On the cost side, EPA 
estimated it would cost a fraction of what NERA estimated, less than 12 
percent. The economic consulting firm Synapse analyzed the NAM report 
and found it ``grossly overstates compliance costs, due to major flaws, 
math errors, and unfounded assumptions . . . these assumptions and 
other flaws led NERA to overstate compliance costs by more than 700 
percent.''
  That is just on the cost side. Once again, they didn't even bother to 
look at the benefits. It is a one-side-of-the-ledger-phony analysis. Of 
course, the chamber commissioned NERA to do the same thing for it on 
climate: overestimate the costs and ignore the benefits. In this world 
of climate denial, this is a classic maneuver.
  Senator Ted Cruz cited the NERA report in his CNN op-ed urging 
President Trump to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement a 
day before President Trump cited these stats in his withdrawal speech.
  Cruz, Trump, and the chamber ignored more than 1,000 companies that 
supported the United States remaining in the Paris Agreement, including 
several chamber member companies. Some of these have publicly distanced 
themselves from the chamber as a result of the President's decision. A 
recent Bloomberg news article was headlined, ``Paris Pullout Pits 
Chamber Against Some of Its Biggest Members.''
  Citigroup said: ``We have been outspoken in our support for the Paris 
agreement and have had a dialogue with the Chamber about how its views 
and advocacy on climate policy are inconsistent with Citi's position.'' 
Similar distancing came from Dow and Ford.
  Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran a piece, ``Is the most 
powerful lobbyist in Washington''--that is the so-called U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce--``losing its grip,'' exploring this tension around climate 
in more detail. The article said: ``[P]erhaps the most nettlesome issue 
for the Chamber has been climate change.'' It calls out the chamber's 
claims to be neutral on the Paris Agreement, while actually providing 
``ammunition for foes of the agreement.''
  The article highlights the chamber's climate denial efforts, 
including its 2009 proposal to hold a public trial on climate science--
what it dubbed ``the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century.'' New 
Mexico-based utility PNM Resources actually quit the chamber because 
that idea was so preposterous.
  The Washington Post identified 8 of the 25 companies that signed an 
ad in the New York Times supporting the Paris Agreement as chamber 
members, including GE, Microsoft, and Walt Disney. The CEOs of these 
companies publicly criticized President Trump's decision.
  Microsoft's Brad Smith said:

       We're disappointed with the decision to exit the Paris 
     Agreement. Microsoft remains committed to doing our part to 
     achieve its goals.

  GE's Jeff Immelt said:

       Disappointed with today's decision on the Paris Agreement. 
     Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend 
     on government.

  Walt Disney's Bob Iger said:

       As a matter of principle, I've resigned from the 
     President's Council over the #Paris Agreement withdrawal.

  The chamber is out of step with its own members on climate change, 
maintaining a scientifically untenable position as every one of our 
State universities knows. Who is pulling the chamber's chain? It is 
hard to tell since the chamber hides from the public who its donors 
are, but I suspect the answer is the same as to why the Republicans 
continue to revive the hated, zombie healthcare bill despite huge 
public distaste for it.
  Mr. President, that brings me to the nomination of John Bush to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The chamber's rigid anti-
climate stance is part of a fossil fuel political program that holds 
this Chamber in a state of intimidation and inaction on climate change. 
As Congress cowers before this fossil fuel political presence, we are 
now advancing the nomination of a climate denier to the Federal bench.
  John Bush was not nominated because of any track record of 
distinguished performance or demonstrated commitment to public service. 
To the contrary, his most notable achievements seem to be a series of 
wildly offensive blog postings and public statements, denying that 
climate change is real and mocking it, comparing a woman's right to 
choose to the evil of slavery, casually using vile slurs against gay 
people. On and on goes the list.
  Bush has written a number of posts dealing with environmental issues 
in which he insists on placing the terms ``global warming'' and 
``climate change'' in quotation marks, insinuating that they do not 
really exist. Tell that to your home State universities.
  With this appalling track record, why was he nominated? It is not 
hard to figure that out. He is here because through those offensive 
blog posts and by flagging himself as a loyal climate denier, he 
signals himself as a willing foot soldier of the big special interests. 
These big special interests are intent on capturing our courts, just as 
they have captured so much of Congress.
  Judicial nominees like Mr. Bush are exactly what these special 
interests want, to make sure they can, first, maintain their dark money 
influence. That is their most particular key. That is the mother ship 
off of which all the other special interest mischief they perform comes 
from and of course to see to it that these big interests are never held 
accountable to the American people. That is the signal he sends.
  Bush has flagged that he will rule the right way for the big special 
interests that fund the Republican Party, and the special interests' 
big reward is his nomination and confirmation. He has shown that he is 
familiar with the recipes when it comes time to cook the decisions.
  My Democratic colleagues and I respect any President's desire and 
prerogative to fill the vacancies in the executive and judicial 
branches. Even though I understand we will not see eye to eye with our 
colleagues across the aisle on every nominee, Senate Democrats have 
given the President's nominees a very fair shake. This is no normal 
nominee. This is a freak who lowers the bar on judicial nominees 
forever.
  If Mr. Bush wants to exercise his First Amendment right to spout 
offensive, ignorant, and hateful nonsense as some kind of nutty 
Breitbart blogger, he is free to do so, but that is not the measure--or 
has not until today been the measure of a Federal judge for the U.S. 
Court of Appeals.
  Mr. Bush is patently unqualified for this position, well outside any 
version of the mainstream, and his appointment can reasonably be 
predicted to bring dishonor and preordained partiality to the 
judiciary. I regret we are at this point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Under the previous order, all 
postcloture time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Bush 
nomination?
  Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[[Page 11224]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 164 Ex.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Stabenow
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________