[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11224-11238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of the Bernhardt nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of David 
Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I want to discuss this nomination.
  I am here to add my voice to those of my colleagues who oppose the 
nomination of David Bernhardt to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior. 
There are a host of reasons--from his history of censoring scientists 
to his denial of climate change--but I am going to limit my remarks to 
his allegiance to the oil industry and, specifically, his disregard for 
the importance of a moratorium on any drilling in the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico.
  During his confirmation process, he gave some very troubling 
responses to questions about the moratorium from the ranking member, 
Senator Cantwell. She asked: ``Do you support the current moratorium in 
relation to offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico?''
  He responded:

       I am aware that, in response to the President's recent 
     Executive Order on the Outer Continental Shelf, Secretary 
     Zinke issued a Secretarial Order 3350 directing the Bureau of 
     Ocean Energy Management to review and develop a new five-year 
     plan. I support the President's and the Secretary's actions 
     to examine new leasing opportunities within the OCS in order 
     to advance the Administration's energy agenda.

  Then Senator Cantwell asked him: ``Do you support extending this 
moratorium?''
  He responded: ``I support the President's and the Secretary's actions 
aimed at increasing offshore production while balancing conservation 
objectives.''
  First of all, when it comes to the eastern gulf, there is no good way 
to increase offshore production while balancing environmental concerns. 
The gulf--the eastern gulf is still recovering from the horrific 2010 
Deepwater Horizon explosion, which fouled the gulf all the way east 
into most of the Panhandle of Florida.
  Secondly, as I have explained time and again, it makes no sense to 
drill in an area that is critically important to the U.S. military and 
is the largest testing and training area for the U.S. military in the 
world, where we are testing our most sophisticated weapons systems and 
where we are sending our fighter pilots who need the open space to 
train. That is why they have the F-22 training at Tyndall Air Force 
Base. That is why they have training for pilots on the F-35 at Eglin 
Air Force Base. That is also why the Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
wrote in a letter just recently, ``The moratorium is essential for 
developing and sustaining the Air Force's future combat capabilities.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have the two letters printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Office of the Under Secretary


                                                   of Defense,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2017.
     Hon. Matt Gaetz,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Gaetz: Thank you for your letter dated 
     March 24, 2017, regarding maintaining the moratorium on oil 
     and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico beyond 2022. Since 
     military readiness falls under my purview, I have been asked 
     to respond to your letter on behalf of the Secretary of 
     Defense. The Department of Defense (DoD) cannot overstate the 
     vital importance of maintaining this moratorium.
       National security and energy security are inextricably 
     linked and the DoD fully supports the development of our 
     nation's domestic energy resources in a manner that is 
     compatible with military testing, training, and operations. 
     As mentioned in your letter, the complex of eastern Gulf of 
     Mexico operating areas and warning areas provides critical 
     opportunities for advanced weapons testing and joint training 
     exercises. The moratorium on oil and gas ``leasing, pre-
     leasing, and other related activities'' ensures that these 
     vital military readiness activities may be conducted without 
     interference and is critical to their continuation. Emerging 
     technologies such as hypersonics, autonomous systems, and 
     advanced sub-surface systems will require enlarged testing 
     and training footprints, and increased DoD reliance on the 
     Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act's moratorium beyond 2022. 
     The moratorium is essential for developing and sustaining our 
     nation's future combat capabilities.
       Since signing the 1983 ``Memorandum of Agreement Between 
     the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior 
     on Mutual Concerns on the Outer Continental Shelf,'' the two 
     departments have worked cooperatively to ensure offshore 
     resource development is compatible with military readiness 
     activities. During recent discussions between the DoD and the 
     Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy 
     Management, a question arose concerning whether Congress 
     intended the moratorium to prohibit even geological and 
     geophysical survey activities in the eastern Gulf. We would 
     welcome clarification from Congress concerning this matter.
       On behalf of the Secretary, I appreciate your interest in 
     sustaining our testing and training activities in the eastern 
     Gulf of Mexico.
           Sincerely,
                                                       A.M. Kurta,
      Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Personnel and Readiness.
                                  ____

                                      Department of the Air Force,


                                 Office of the Chief of Staff,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
     Hon. Bill Nelson,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nelson: I write this letter in whole-hearted 
     support of a proposal seeking to extend the moratorium on 
     leasing, preleasing, or any other related activity in any 
     area east of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico. 
     I understand this provision is being considered for inclusion 
     in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2018.
       The Air Force fully supports the development of our 
     nation's domestic energy resources in a manner that is 
     compatible with the military testing, training, and 
     operations. The complex of eastern Gulf of Mexico operating 
     areas and warning areas provides critical opportunities for 
     advanced weapons testing and joint training exercises. The 
     moratorium on oil and gas leasing, pre-leasing, and other 
     related activities ensures that these vital military 
     readiness activities may be conducted without interference 
     and is critical to their continuation. Of course, we are 
     always willing to work with the appropriate agencies to see 
     if there are ways to explore for energy without hampering air 
     operations.
       The moratorium is essential for developing and sustaining 
     the Air Force's future combat capabilities. Although the Gulf 
     of Mexico Energy Security Act's moratorium does not expire 
     until 2022, the Air Force needs the certainty of the proposed 
     extension to guarantee long-term capabilities for future 
     tests.

[[Page 11225]]

     Emerging technologies such as hypersonics, 5th generation 
     fighters, and advanced sub-surface systems will require 
     enlarged testing and training footprints, and increased Air 
     Force reliance on the moratorium far beyond 2022.
       Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any 
     questions. I look forward to continuing our work with you to 
     ensure America's Air Force remains the very best.
           Sincerely,
                                                David L. Goldfein,
                                    General, USAF, Chief of Staff.

  Mr. NELSON. The letters--one from the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense and the other from General Goldfein, the Chief of Staff of the 
Air Force--state they are needing to put a major investment of 
telemetry into the eastern gulf range for all of these sophisticated 
weapons systems, and they don't want this investment of the 
infrastructure with the moratorium ending in the year 2022. They want 
to extend the moratorium for another 5 years, to 2027. That is a 
reasonable request by the Department of Defense and the Department of 
the Air Force.
  For example, a test can start way down in the South, off of Key West, 
and a cruise missile could go all the way, 300 miles, because of the 
size of this test range, and then it could have a land impact on Eglin 
Air Force Base. That is part of our testing regime.
  One could ask, Why couldn't the cruise missile weave around oil rig 
activities? Well, look at the new miniature cruise missiles that are 
out there. It is not one, but a swarm, which takes up a big footprint 
that we are testing. This is just one example of a weapons system that 
needs a lot of open space. This is a national asset. We don't want to 
give it up. That is why the top brass in the Pentagon is asking that we 
extend this moratorium so that those expensive investments in telemetry 
can be made.
  We should not put someone in charge at the Department of the Interior 
if he has an open objection to what is obviously needed for national 
security and if he has demonstrated a history of siding just with 
special interests. It would be a bad decision when it comes to the 
national security of this country.
  I am going to oppose the nomination, but that is just one reason, one 
item, on an ever-growing list of concerns that this Senator has with 
the Department of the Interior these days.
  On June 29, Secretary Zinke announced that the Department was seeking 
public comment on a new 5-year plan for offshore oil and gas leasing. 
In case anyone has forgotten, the current 5-year plan was just 
finalized 6 months ago and is supposed to run through 2022. Why would 
the Department spend more taxpayer money to go through the whole 
process all over again? The only reason this Senator can see is that 
the oil industry wants more acreage. They are going after the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico, despite the fact that the Department of Defense is 
asking for exactly the opposite.
  By the way, they ought to take from the very productive sections of 
the Gulf of Mexico off of Louisiana. There are acres and acres under 
lease, but of all those acres under lease, how many are actually 
drilled and/or in production? It is a small percentage of the acreage 
under lease that is actually drilled. So why don't we take advantage of 
the existing leases, particularly in the central gulf, which is where 
the oil is? That is where all the sediments over millions of years came 
down the Mississippi River, settled in what is today the gulf, into the 
Earth's crust, compacted it, and made it into oil. That is where the 
oil is.
  Now, remember, also out there in the eastern gulf, this is the area 
that is off limits. This is the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range. The 
Air Force wants to extend that moratorium from 2022 by 5 years--out to 
2027--in order to protect it for all of these reasons we have been 
discussing. It is all of that open space, and we ought not give it up.
  I will give you another example of the short memories over at the 
Department of the Interior.
  After the 2010 BP oilspill, it became clear that the relationship 
between regulators and the oil industry was a problem so the Minerals 
Management Service was divided into two separate agencies in the 
Department of the Interior--the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
which regulates lease sales, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
Enforcement, which is supposed to ensure that safety standards are 
followed. Less than a decade later, people seem to have forgotten all 
of that, and they want to put the two back together again. It is 
another example of what is going on. Not only that, but the 
administration is trying to roll back the safety rules, like the well 
control rule that was finalized in November of last year. This long-
overdue rule seeks to prevent what went so tragically wrong on the 
Deepwater Horizon rig from ever happening again.
  Every day, it seems like the administration is coming up with a new 
way to put the gulf at risk and Florida's coastline and tourism-driven 
economy at risk. It is now putting at risk the national security of the 
country by messing up the largest testing and training range for the 
U.S. military and the world. It is utilized by all branches of service. 
As a matter of fact, when they stopped the Atlantic fleet of the Navy 
from doing all of its training off of Puerto Rico on the Island of 
Vieques, all of that training came to the gulf. The Navy squadrons come 
down for 2 weeks at a time to the Naval Air Station Key West, with the 
airport actually being on Boca Chica Key, and when they lift off on the 
runway, within 2 minutes, those F/A-18s are over restricted airspace so 
they do not have to spend a lot of time and fuel in getting to their 
training area.
  I have heard from business owners, and I have heard from residents 
across the entire State of Florida. They do not want drilling in the 
eastern gulf. They have seen what can happen when the inevitable spill 
happens. We lose an entire season of tourism, and all of that revenue 
goes away, along with that loss.
  Why do they know that?
  The BP oilspill was off of Louisiana, but the winds started carrying 
the oil slicks to the east. It got as far east as Pensacola Beach, and 
the white, sugary sands of Pensacola were covered in black oil. That 
was the photograph that went around the world. The winds continued to 
push it, and tar mats came over and got onto the beach at Destin. We 
were desperately trying to keep the oil from going into the 
Choctawhatchee Bay at Destin like it had already gone into the 
Pensacola Bay at Pensacola. The winds kept pushing it to the east, and 
the tarballs ended up all over the tourism beaches of Panama City. Then 
the winds did us a favor--they reversed, and they started taking it 
back to the west.
  So there was oil on some of the beaches, but what happened for an 
entire year of the tourist season? The tourists did not come to the 
gulf beaches, not only in Northwest Florida but all down the peninsula, 
all the way down to Marco Island, and they lost an entire tourist 
season. That is why people are so upset about any messing around.
  This Senator brings this to us as I have spoken of what has happened 
and have stood up for over the last four decades in order to fight to 
prevent those kinds of spills from happening again off the coast of the 
State of Florida.
  Yet now we have, right here, an issue in front of us, something that 
could threaten the Department of Defense's mission for being ready to 
protect this Nation. In that case, my recommendation to the Senate is 
not to vote for this nomination for Deputy Secretary of the Interior 
because of his history and because of how he responded to Senator 
Cantwell in the committee.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam 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. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bernhardt nomination is pending.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I rise today to speak about the Bernhardt nomination 
to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior.

[[Page 11226]]

  The Deputy Secretary plays an important role in forming and carrying 
out the administration's policy on a broad range of issues. These 
issues include our Nation's public lands, our national parks, our 
national wildlife refuges, our water resources, mineral and energy 
development on public lands and Federal waters, carrying out our trust 
responsibilities to our Tribal nations, and working with our 
territories and Freely Associated States.
  The Deputy Secretary also performs very important functions as it 
relates to the Secretary or in the Secretary's absence. In virtually 
all matters, the Deputy Secretary has the authority of the Secretary. 
That is why I look at this position with such an important critique, 
because we know in past positions there have been conflicts, and we 
know we have important policies to discuss, and we need to make sure we 
have no conflicts of interest.
  I have made no secret that I have concerns about this nomination. Mr. 
Bernhardt is no stranger to this body and he is no stranger to the 
Department of the Interior. He held a number of senior political 
positions in the Department during the Bush administration beginning in 
2006.
  After leaving the Department in 2009, he returned to a successful 
private practice. For 8 years, he has represented a wide range of 
clients, including oil and gas companies, mining companies, and water 
supply interests in California, just to name a few. If he is confirmed, 
he will oversee the same companies at the Department of the Interior; 
that is, he will be making decisions on the same things that he lobbied 
for at the agency, and now he will be on the other side of the table 
and be able, after a short period of time, to make decisions in those 
areas.
  So, as I said at his confirmation hearing--I'm not suggesting that 
just working for the private sector disqualifies someone, but when you 
have a wide range of issues that you have worked on in the private 
sector and now you are going to be on the other side of the table, it 
brings up concerns.
  The President of the United States traveled the country when he was 
campaigning and said he wanted to drain the swamp from special 
interests, and he has repeated that many times over the last few years. 
But with Mr. Bernhardt's nomination, I am afraid he is not draining the 
swamp, he is actually helping to fill it.
  The nominee's private sector experience as a registered lobbyist for 
companies whose main public policy focuses are in the Department of 
Interior creates an appearance of a conflict of interest. Also, the 
nominee wants to lead the Department that he sued four times.
  It is true that Mr. Bernhardt has considerable experience. We saw 
another nominee come to this same post in a past administration on the 
same basis. People thought he had a lot of experience in a lot of these 
cases, but he obviously didn't follow the law and ended up going to 
jail because of his overreaching within the agency and organization.
  So these are very important public policy issues, public lands 
issues--interests that the American people need to make sure are 
aboveboard and no conflicts of interest.
  Mr. Bernhardt served in the highest levels of the Department of the 
Interior at a time when the inspector general called it ``a culture of 
ethical failure.'' I know that at the hearing he told us he tried to 
help change that failure of culture within the agency. The Inspector 
General also testified that ``ethics failures on the part of senior 
department officials--taking the form of appearances of impropriety, 
favoritism and bias--have been routinely dismissed with a promise `not 
to do it again.'''
  While Mr. Bernhardt has given testimony about the fact that he tried 
to help change and get away from that culture, I still have concerns 
that his private sector client base poses a significant problem. The 
nominee's extensive client base in the area, which falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, creates at least an 
inherent appearance of conflict. He and his clients have lobbied 
extensively on such matters as the Cadiz pipeline in California, 
opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, and 
weakening the Endangered Species Act. He has advocated in favor of 
expanding offshore drilling and lifting the moratorium in the Gulf 
after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. He also represented Westlands 
Water District, the Nation's largest irrigation district, as a 
registered lobbyist. His law firm represented Westlands in four 
different lawsuits against the Department of the Interior.
  In November 2016, he joined the Trump transition team, and Mr. 
Bernhardt deregistered as a lobbyist for Westlands yet continued to 
work for them in some capacity.
  As the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
I raised concerns about these issues with the nominee during his 
confirmation hearing. He has submitted required financial disclosure 
and ethics forms, but there are specific questions we want to make sure 
are addressed.
  He has declined to comment on recusing himself beyond just the 1-year 
minimum that is required by the ethics rules. I know Mr. Bernhardt says 
he will comply with whatever the organization and agency requires, but 
we don't have the time, given the long list of conflicts of interest 
and given that past case representation, to constantly know every issue 
and every meeting and every oversight to make sure that undue influence 
is not being pressured at the Department of Interior.
  The President of the United States, who nominated Mr. Bernhardt, told 
the Times just yesterday in a conversation about the Attorney General: 
``If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he 
took the job and I would have picked someone else.'' Well, I hope that 
is not the issue here. I hope the agency isn't running fast toward 
somebody who just won't recuse themselves in hopes that they will get 
someone who will do the bidding of these interests and not take into 
consideration the complexity, the legal structure, and the challenges 
that dealing with these issues takes.
  In fact, as late as March of this year, Mr. Bernhardt's firm was 
submitting invoices to Westlands for lobbying charges with itemized 
expenses. Documents show he was engaged in regular contact with 
congressional offices and working on legislation and efforts to inform 
administration policy at the same time he was serving on the Trump 
transition team.
  Even the appearance that Mr. Bernhardt was still lobbying on behalf 
of clients that do business with the Department of the Interior at the 
same time he wants to help lead it validates some of the concerns we 
have been expressing.
  I remain concerned about his record on behalf of these corporations 
at the expense of the environment and his tenure at the Department of 
the Interior and many other challenges. The Department's 
responsibilities and jurisdictions are just too vast. They are too 
important to the American people to just green-light someone who I 
believe will be very challenged in doing this job. So I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this nomination.
  Just today, a complaint was filed with a U.S. Attorney about this 
nominee's alleged lobbying activities based on new records available 
pursuant to California public records law. I want answers from the 
nominee. We are going to continue to ask questions.
  In the meantime, I ask my colleagues to oppose this nomination. Make 
sure we get the answers we need before the nomination of David 
Bernhardt can continue.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam 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. GARDNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, it is my honor to come to the Senate 
floor today to talk in support of a fellow Coloradan's nomination to be 
the

[[Page 11227]]

Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior--David Bernhardt. I 
am very excited about his nomination, strongly support his nomination, 
and believe that my fellow Coloradan will do an absolutely incredible 
job for Colorado and for the rest of this country at the Department of 
the Interior.
  I had the great honor just a month or more ago of welcoming David to 
the committee and welcoming his beautiful family there with him that 
day. I reminded his oldest son Will about the connection that my family 
and our oldest child will always have with Will, because when my wife 
Jaime was working at the Department of the Interior, our oldest 
daughter Alyson spent some time at daycare with David Bernhardt's son 
Will, as well. It was the same daycare and the same work Jaime and 
David did at the Department of the Interior, working together all those 
years. But there is more than that. There are more connections I will 
share, between David Bernhardt and me, and one of the many reasons why 
I support him.
  I have known him personally and professionally for nearly two 
decades. We both grew up in rural Colorado. I am from the Eastern 
Plains of Colorado, and Mr. Bernhardt is from the Western Slope. I am 
from the flatlands, and he is from the mountains. We share a lot of 
common interests in rural development and saving small towns.
  We both began our public service 1 year apart, interning in the 
Colorado State Legislature for a member of the Colorado State 
Legislature named Russell George, who would go on, eventually, to 
become the Colorado speaker of the house.
  I will never forget when I began. It was in the second term of then-
State Representative Russell George. I worked for him on Tuesdays and 
Thursdays in an internship through Colorado State University. He said: 
You should reach out and meet last year's intern because I think he 
could help you figure out the ropes around here and what you should 
know about the internship. He gave me the phone number for David 
Bernhardt. So I followed in the footsteps of David Bernhardt at the 
capitol, and I am excited to see the work that he continues to do.
  As I mentioned, Mr. Bernhardt worked with my wife Jaime at the 
Department of the Interior, and, at one point, their offices were just 
around the corner from one another. His personal background and public 
and private sector professional experiences prove that he is a strong 
voice for the West and extremely well-qualified for the nomination to 
be Deputy Secretary. He has extensive insight on western water policy, 
natural resource policy, and Indian affairs, just to name a few. Those 
who have worked with Mr. Bernhardt commend him for his integrity and 
wealth of knowledge on the issues under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of the Interior.
  In 2008, after the Department reached the largest Indian water rights 
settlement in the Nation's history, Secretary Kempthorne personally 
acknowledged Mr. Bernhardt's work as then-Solicitor and stated: ``His 
effective coordination--both within Interior as well as with the local, 
tribal, state and congressional leaders--was essential to the success 
we celebrate today.''
  The country will indeed benefit from having Mr. Bernhardt serve as 
Deputy Secretary, a position that is the second ranking official within 
the Department and has statutory responsibilities as the chief 
operating officer.
  Along with Mr. Bernhardt's professional career, I believe it is 
important to fully understand his background and the foundation of his 
interest in public lands, which further qualifies him for this very 
important role.
  Mr. Bernhardt is originally from the outskirts of the small town of 
Rifle, CO, located on Colorado's Western Slope. If you have driven 
through the Eisenhower Tunnel, the Veterans Memorial Tunnels, or if you 
go to Grand Junction, CO, you will have been right by and through 
Rifle, CO.
  Few places more fully embody the spirit and mission of the agency he 
has been nominated to lead as Deputy Secretary. Growing up in rural 
Colorado instilled in David strong western values and interests, and, 
to this day, Mr. Bernhardt enjoys hunting, recreation, the outdoors, 
and fishing.
  Rifle is located in Garfield County, an area where about 60 percent 
of the lands are Federal public lands. Think about the work he is about 
to take on upon confirmation: 60 percent of his home county is public 
lands.
  Rifle was founded as a ranching community along the Colorado River, 
and it retains that heritage today, along with tremendous opportunities 
for world-class outdoor recreation, including fishing, hiking, skiing, 
rafting, and rock climbing. It also sits at the very edge of the 
Piceance Basin, an area in Colorado which has vast amounts of natural 
gas.
  David grew up in the oil shale boom and bust and has said that the 
boom-and-bust cycle in Western Colorado has made him more sensitive to 
the potential benefits and the potential impacts--both environmental 
and social--of resources development.
  In the 1980s, his hometown of Rifle was hit hard by the State's oil 
shale crash, and he personally experienced some of the hard times the 
Nation's rural communities often face. Much like the Department of the 
Interior itself, Rifle is a community that is a product of its public 
lands and the western heritage around it. It is centrally located, just 
a few miles away from the iconic Grand Mesa, the world's largest flat 
top mountain. The flat top's wilderness and the Roan Plateau represent 
a home base among these public lands, with virtually unmatched access 
to world-class outdoor experiences, which is why Mr. Bernhardt has such 
a passion for these issues.
  His background and outlook on public lands and water issues assisted 
him in his prior service at the Department of the Interior, including 
in the Solicitor's role. Mr. Bernhardt's confirmation as Solicitor was 
confirmed by voice vote by the U.S. Senate in 2006. By voice vote, he 
was approved the last time he served at the Department of the Interior.
  There have been other nominees--I think this has been a subject of 
debate on his nomination--considered by the Energy Committee and by 
this body who practiced private law from the time between their public 
service appointments at the Department of the Interior and the time 
they would come back to the administration. Mr. Bernhardt has taken the 
same steps these nominees did in order for his nomination to move 
forward today.
  I think it is important to point out the Hayes-Schneider standard 
that was established for the Department of the Interior.
  David Hayes, nominated for Deputy Secretary in the Obama 
administration, was confirmed by the Senate. He had previously served 
in the Clinton administration, and then he served in the Obama 
administration. In between that time, he had a private law practice.
  Janice Schneider, nominated for Assistant Secretary under President 
Obama, served in the Clinton administration but in between served in a 
private law practice. What we see is another nominee who is a dedicated 
public servant, has gained experience in the private sector, and is 
willing to come back to public service to give back to our great 
country.
  Mr. Bernhardt's integrity and ability are two of his strongest 
qualities for his nomination. Public service requires certain 
sacrifices. I certainly appreciate Mr. Bernhardt's and his family's 
acceptance of the nomination that will be considered by this body 
today.
  I hope the Senate process has not become a broken process, which 
disincentivizes qualified people--like Mr. Bernhardt, who is held in 
high professional regard--from serving and from returning to public 
service. That is why I hope his nomination today receives strong 
bipartisan support.
  As the Senate takes up the vote on this nomination, I urge my 
colleagues to hold this nominee to the same practice, the same process 
to which we hold all nominees who are under consideration before the 
U.S. Senate.
  There are a number of individuals and organizations that support 
David

[[Page 11228]]

Bernhardt. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe in Colorado has written a 
letter of support for his nomination; the Colorado Water Congress, a 
very important organization made up of environmentalists and water 
users and municipalities, supports David Bernhardt's nomination; the 
Colorado River District supports David Bernhardt's nomination.
  Why are these important? Because these are people who have worked 
with him throughout his career, from the time he was an intern for 
Russell George in the State legislature to the time that he worked with 
Scott McInnis, to the time he worked at a law firm, to the time he 
worked at the Department of the Interior, all the way up until today.
  The National Congress of American Indians supports David Bernhardt as 
Deputy Secretary of the Interior; Ducks Unlimited applauds the 
nomination of David Bernhardt as Deputy Secretary of the Interior; the 
Boone and Crockett Club supports David Bernhardt's nomination to be 
Deputy Secretary of the Interior. The list goes on and on.
  Here is a letter from a wide variety of organizations: the 
International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, the Recreational 
Vehicle Industry, environmental organizations that have done great work 
in conservation, the National Shooting Sports Foundation. These are 
groups, organizations--not partisan efforts, but organizations that 
rely on Democrats and Republicans.
  The Indian Nation supports David Bernhardt's nomination. These are 
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents across the country who believe 
David Bernhardt would do an incredible job at the Department of the 
Interior.
  Here is a letter of support for David Bernhardt from the chief of the 
Penobscot Nation. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association supports 
the nomination of David Bernhardt. The list goes on and on.
  To my colleagues today, from those who know him best, I ask support 
for David Bernhardt, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the 
Interior, and stress the importance of a strong bipartisan vote today 
to show support for our western States that have so much need at the 
Department of the Interior. The work needs to be done so that we can 
start once again getting to the work of the people.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of 
     the Interior.
         Mitch McConnell, Roger F. Wicker, John Thune, Tim Scott, 
           John Hoeven, Pat Roberts, Orrin G. Hatch, Tom Cotton, 
           John Barrasso, Thom Tillis, Michael B. Enzi, John 
           Boozman, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn, James Lankford, 
           Mike Rounds, Cory Gardner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of David Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of 
the Interior, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), 
and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and 
the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 165 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Leahy
     McCain
     Moran
     Sasse
     Stabenow
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
39.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr HATCH. Mr. President, is it appropriate to make a speech at this 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President.
  President Ronald Reagan used to say that people are policy. Attacking 
a new President's policies, therefore, often includes undermining his 
or her ability to appoint men and women to lead his or her 
administration.
  The Constitution gives to the President the power to appoint 
executive branch officials. The Senate has the power of advice and 
consent as a check on that appointment power.
  In the early months of the Obama administration, Senate Democrats 
were clear about how we should carry out our role in the appointment 
process. Less than 2 weeks after President Obama took office, the 
Judiciary Committee chairman said he wished that the Senate could have 
put the new Justice Department leadership in place even more quickly. 
Just 3 months into President Obama's first term, the chairman argued 
that, ``at the beginning of a presidential term, it makes sense to have 
the President's nominees in place earlier, rather than engage in 
needless delay.''
  Well, actions speak much louder than words. With a Republican in the 
White House, Senate Democrats have turned our role of advice and 
consent into the most aggressive obstruction campaign in history.
  This chart is an illustration.
  Democrats complained about obstruction when, during the first 6 
months of the Obama administration, the Senate confirmed 69 percent of 
his nominations. Today marks 6 months since President Trump took the 
oath of office, and the Senate has been able to confirm only 23 percent 
of his nominations.
  I ask my Democratic colleagues: If 69 percent is too low, what do you 
call a confirmation pace that is two-thirds lower?
  Democrats do not have the votes to defeat nominees outright. That is 
why the centerpiece of their obstruction campaign is a strategy to make 
confirming President Trump's nominees as difficult and time-consuming 
as possible.
  Here is how they do it. The Senate is designed for deliberation as 
well as for action. As a result, the Senate must end debate on a 
nomination before it can confirm that nomination. Doing so informally 
is fast. Doing it formally is slow.
  In the past, the majority and minority informally agreed on the 
necessity or length of any debate on a nomination, as well as when a 
confirmation vote would occur. The first step in the Democrats' 
obstruction campaign, therefore, is to refuse any cooperation on 
scheduling debates and votes on nominations. The only option is to use 
the formal process of ending debate by invoking cloture under Senate 
rule

[[Page 11229]]

XXII. A motion to end debate is filed, but the vote on that motion 
cannot occur for 2 calendar days. If cloture is invoked, there can then 
be up to 30 hours of debate before a confirmation vote can occur.
  The Democrats' obstruction playbook calls for stretching this process 
out as long as possible. While informal cooperation can take a couple 
of hours, the formal cloture process can take up to several days.
  The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said that you are 
entitled to your opinion, but not to your own set of facts. I would 
state, then, to let the confirmation facts do the talking.
  President Trump and his three predecessors were each elected with the 
Senate controlled by his own political party. This is another 
illustration right here. At this point in the Clinton and George W. 
Bush administrations, the Senate had taken no cloture votes--nothing, 
none whatsoever--as you can see, on nominations. We took just four 
nomination cloture votes at this point during the Obama administration. 
So far in the Trump administration, the Senate has taken 33 cloture 
votes on nominations. Think about that. If that isn't obstruction, I 
don't know what is. It is not even close.
  There is one very important difference between cloture votes taken in 
the beginning of the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administrations and those 
taken this year. In November 2013, Democrats effectively abolished 
nomination filibusters by lowering the vote necessary to end debate 
from a supermajority of 60 to a simple majority. It now takes no more 
votes to end debate than it does to confirm a nomination. In other 
words, the Senate did not take cloture votes during previous 
administrations, even though doing so could have prevented 
confirmation.
  Today, Democrats are forcing the Senate to take dozens of cloture 
votes even though doing so cannot prevent confirmation. At least half 
of these useless cloture votes taken so far would have passed even 
under the higher 60-vote threshold.
  Earlier this week, 88 Senators, including 41 Democrats, voted to end 
debate on President Trump's nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. 
We have seen tallies of 67, 81, 89, and even 92 votes for ending 
debate. Meanwhile, these needless delays are creating critical gaps in 
the executive branch.
  A clear example is the nomination of Makan Delrahim, a former Senate 
staffer whom everybody on both sides knows, is a wonderful guy, and who 
everybody knows is honest. But this clear example is the nomination of 
Delrahim to head the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice. 
Antitrust enforcement is a critical element of national economic 
policy. It protects consumers and businesses alike, and, without 
filling these important posts, uncertainty in the market reigns. This 
is a particular problem at a time of common and massive mergers and 
acquisitions. Yet Mr. Delrahim, like dozens of others, has been caught 
in the maelstrom of delays. Mr. Delrahim was appointed out of the 
Judiciary Committee on a 19-to-1 vote. Everybody there knows how good 
he is, how decent he is, how honorable he is, and how bipartisan he has 
been. He is supremely qualified and enjoyed broad support throughout 
the Senate as a whole. Yet his nomination, like so many others, 
languishes on the floor because of Democratic obstruction. Indeed, it 
has taken longer to get Mr. Delrahim confirmed than any Antitrust 
Division leader since the Carter administration. Keep in mind that this 
is a former staffer of ours who served both Democrats and Republicans.
  Regarding the delay of Mr. Delrahim's confirmation, I ask unanimous 
consent to have two news articles printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From www.wsj.com, July 12, 2017]

              Senate Fight Over Trump's Nominees Heats Up

                 (By Brent Kendall and Natalie Andrews)

       Washington--A congressional battle over President Donald 
     Trump's nominations for a range of influential positions is 
     escalating and becoming more acrimonious, creating additional 
     uncertainty over when some notable government vacancies might 
     be filled.
       Mr. Trump has been slower than recent presidents to roll 
     out nominees. But for an array of people the president has 
     selected, Senate Democrats are using procedural tactics to 
     slow the confirmation process to a crawl--at least in part to 
     object to the lack of open hearings on health-care 
     legislation, Democratic leaders say.
       More than 30 nominees are sitting on the sidelines while 
     they await a final Senate confirmation vote. Those include 
     several picks for the Justice and Treasury departments, as 
     well as new commissioners for a federal energy regulator that 
     has been unable to conduct official business because of its 
     vacancies.
       If the current pattern holds, many of these people may not 
     be confirmed for their jobs before the Senate takes a break 
     in mid-August. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., 
     N.Y.) in most circumstances has been invoking Senate 
     procedures to require up to 30 hours of debate per nominee, 
     an amount of Senate floor time that means lawmakers can't 
     confirm more than a handful of nominees each week.
       The minority party often waives a requirement for lengthy 
     debate, but Democrats are generally declining to do so. In 
     response to GOP complaints, they cite what they call 
     Republican obstructionism under President Barack Obama, 
     including Republicans' refusal to hold a hearing or vote on 
     Mr. Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.
       In the current environment, even noncontroversial nominees 
     can take up several days of Senate time. For example, the 
     Senate spent much of the first part of the week considering 
     the nomination of David Nye to be a federal judge in Idaho. 
     Mr. Nye was originally nominated by Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump 
     renominated him after taking office.
       Senators took a procedural vote Monday on Mr. Nye, but he 
     wasn't confirmed until Wednesday afternoon, on a 100-0 vote.
       Raw feelings on both sides of the aisle erupted this week. 
     Republicans accused Democrats of unprecedented obstruction, 
     saying it would take the Senate more than 11 years at the 
     current pace before Mr. Trump could fully staff a government.
       White House legislative affairs director Marc Short, in a 
     press briefing Monday, accused Mr. Schumer of being an 
     irresponsible champion of the ``resist'' movement. Senate 
     Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) cited the issue as 
     a top reason for his decision to push back the Senate's 
     planned August recess by two weeks.
       On the Senate floor Wednesday, Mr. McConnell said Democrats 
     were ``bound and determined to impede the president from 
     making appointments, and they're willing to go to 
     increasingly absurd lengths to further that goal.''
       Democrats dismiss such characterizations given what they 
     see as unprecedented Republican tactics toward Mr. Obama's 
     nominees, especially Judge Garland. In February 2016, 
     Republican Senate leaders said they wouldn't consider a 
     Supreme Court nominee until after the election.
       Democrats also note that Mr. Trump has yet to name people 
     for hundreds of vacancies and say there have been paperwork 
     problems with a number of people he has chosen.
       ``Our Republican friends, when they're worried about the 
     slow pace of nominations, ought to look in the mirror,'' Mr. 
     Schumer said on the Senate floor on Tuesday. The GOP 
     complaints about the pace of confirmations, he added, ``goes 
     to show how desperate our Republican leadership is to shift 
     the blame and attention away from their health-care bill.''
       Mr. Schumer has said Democrats will generally insist on 
     lengthy Senate debate time for nominees until Republicans 
     start using traditional Senate procedures for advancing their 
     health legislation, including committee hearings and bill 
     markups.
       Mr. McConnell has said Republicans have held numerous 
     hearings on ACA issues in the past and it isn't necessary to 
     do so for the current legislation.
       Unlike the political fights earlier in the year over some 
     of Mr. Trump's cabinet picks and his Supreme Court nomination 
     of Neil Gorsuch, the current nominees at the head of the 
     queue aren't high-profile, and some have bipartisan support.
       Those awaiting Senate floor action include Makan Delrahim, 
     in line to lead the Justice Department's antitrust division. 
     Mr. Delrahim, a deputy White House counsel who served as a 
     government antitrust lawyer in the George W. Bush 
     administration, was approved by the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee five weeks ago on a 19-1 vote.
       Among its current pending matters, the antitrust division 
     is deep into its review of AT&T Inc.'s proposed $85 billion 
     deal to acquire Time Warner Inc., a transaction announced in 
     October.
       Also pending are two picks for Republican seats on the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which usually has five 
     members but currently has just one. Since February, the 
     commission has lacked a quorum to conduct official business 
     such as approving energy infrastructure projects. The 
     nominees, Neil Chatterjee, a McConnell aide, and Robert 
     Powelson, each were approved on a 20-3

[[Page 11230]]

     vote by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
     last month.
       Mr. Trump may have made a tactical misstep by not moving to 
     fill an open Democratic FERC seat at the same time he 
     announced the GOP nominees in May. For government commissions 
     made up of members from both parties, presidents usually look 
     to pair Democratic and Republican nominees, which gives both 
     sides an incentive to move forward with the nominations. Mr. 
     Trump in late June announced his intention to nominate 
     Richard Glick, a Democratic Senate staffer, for an open FERC 
     seat, but he hasn't done so yet.
       Other pending nominees include Boeing executive Patrick 
     Shanahan to be deputy secretary of defense, the No. 2 slot at 
     the Pentagon, and Kevin Hassett to be the chairman of the 
     Council of Economic Advisers.
       Dozens of other nominees have been working their way 
     through Senate committees and could be in line for full 
     Senate consideration in the coming weeks. Those include 
     Christopher Wray for FBI director as well as two nominees for 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
                                  ____


                 [From Law360, New York, July 14, 2017]

      Wait To Confirm Trump's Antitrust Chief Longest In 40 Years

                             (By Eric Kroh)

       It has taken longer for the administration of President 
     Donald Trump to get its top antitrust lawyer in place at the 
     U.S. Department of Justice than any since President Jimmy 
     Carter, leaving the division running at a limited clip some 
     six months into Trump's tenure.
       As of Friday, it has been 175 days since Trump's 
     inauguration, and his nominee for assistant attorney general 
     in charge of the DOJ's antitrust division, Makan Delrahim, 
     has yet to be approved by the full Senate despite pressing 
     matters such as the government's review of AT&T's proposed 
     $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner.
       After taking office, Trump's five predecessors had their 
     nominees to head the antitrust division confirmed by June at 
     the latest. In the last 40 years, only Carter has taken 
     longer to get his pick permanently installed after a change 
     in administration. Carter nominated John H. Shenefield to be 
     assistant attorney general on July 7, 1977, and he was 
     confirmed on Sept. 15 of that year.
       On the rung below, only two of five deputy assistant 
     attorney general positions are currently filled at the 
     antitrust division. Though the division is largely staffed by 
     career employees and has been humming along under acting 
     directors, the lack of a confirmed head and the vacancies at 
     the deputy level could be a sign that the administration 
     doesn't place a high priority on antitrust matters, according 
     to Christopher L Sagers of the Cleveland-Marshall College of 
     Law at Cleveland State University.
       ``It doesn't seem like this particular White House has been 
     as interested in the day-to-day administration of government 
     as it has been in political issues,'' Sagers said. ``I don't 
     think that bodes particularly well for antitrust 
     enforcement.''
       Trump did not take especially long to nominate Delrahim. It 
     had been 66 days since his inauguration when Trump announced 
     his choice on March 27. Former President Barack Obama was 
     relatively speedy with his pick, naming Christine A. Varney 
     to the position a mere two days after taking the oath of 
     office. On average, though, the six presidents before Trump 
     took about 72 days to announce their nominees.
       However, it has taken an unusually long time for Delrahim 
     to make it through the logjam of nominations in the Senate. 
     As of Friday, it has been 109 days since Trump announced 
     Delrahim as his pick to lead the antitrust division. Of the 
     past six administrations, only President George W. Bush's 
     nominee took longer to confirm when the Senate approved 
     Charles A. James on June 15, 2001, 120 days after he was 
     nominated.
       Popular wisdom holds that the antitrust division is 
     hesitant to launch any major merger challenges or cartel 
     investigations when it is operating under an acting assistant 
     attorney general, but that is largely a canard, Sagers said.
       It's true that the division has been mainly focused on 
     addressing litigation and deal reviews that were already 
     ongoing when Trump took office and continuing probes begun 
     under Obama. However, past acting assistant attorneys general 
     have not been afraid to take aggressive enforcement actions, 
     such as the DOJ's challenge to AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile 
     in 2011 under acting head Sharis A. Pozen, Sagers said.
       Nevertheless, the lack of permanent leadership is likely 
     being felt at the division, Sagers said.
       ``At a minimum, it's a burden on the agency's ability to 
     get all its work done,'' he said.
       For example, the DOJ asked the Second Circuit on two 
     occasions for more time to file its opening brief in a case 
     involving the government's interpretation of a decades-old 
     antitrust consent decree that applies to music performing 
     rights organization Broadcast Music Inc. In its request, the 
     DOJ said it needed to push back the filing deadline because 
     of the turnover in leadership at the antitrust division.
       ``Given the context of decrees that govern much of the 
     licensing for the public performance of musical works in the 
     United States, this is an important issue,'' the DOJ said in 
     an April court filing. ``In the meantime, there is still an 
     ongoing transition in the leadership in the Department of 
     Justice, and this is a matter on which the newly appointed 
     officials should have an opportunity to review any brief 
     before it is filed.''
       The Second Circuit ultimately declined to grant the DOJ's 
     second request for an extension.
       The setting of big-picture policies at the antitrust 
     division such as in the BMI case is exactly the kind of thing 
     that can fall by the wayside under temporary leadership, 
     Sagers said.
       Depending on the industry, companies may also be waiting to 
     see the direction the DOJ takes on merger reviews under the 
     Trump administration before deciding to follow through with 
     or pursue large deals, according to Andrea Murino, a partner 
     with Goodwin Procter LLP.
       ``I do think it is something you have to factor in,'' 
     Murino said.
       Dealmakers may be watching to see how the DOJ acts on 
     blockbuster transactions such as the AT&T-Time Warner merger. 
     The antitrust division also has to decide whether to 
     challenge German drug and chemicals maker Bayer AG's $66 
     billion acquisition of U.S.-based Monsanto Co.
       The antitrust division's tenor will in large part be set by 
     who will serve under Delrahim in the deputy assistant 
     attorney general positions. Following Delrahim's 
     confirmation, current acting Assistant Attorney General 
     Andrew Finch will serve as his principal deputy. Last month, 
     the DOJ named Donald G. Kempf Jr. and Bryson Bachman to two 
     of the deputy assistant attorney general openings, leaving 
     three vacancies remaining.
       While it's preferable to have a full slate of officials and 
     enforcers in place, the antitrust division will continue to 
     review deals, go to court and police cartels until those 
     seats are filled, Murino said.
       ``They've gone through this before, maybe just not for this 
     length of time,'' she said. ``There is a slew of really 
     talented career people that do not change with the political 
     administration.
       As long as those people are in place, they will keep the 
     trains running on time.''

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Mr. Delrahim's appointment is just one 
example among many. This particular example serves an important case in 
point. Democrats are deliberately slow walking dozens of confirmations 
in a cynical effort to stall the President's agenda and hurt the 
President, but they are hurting the country, and they are hurting the 
Senate. They are hurting both sides.
  I don't want to see Republicans respond in kind when Democrats become 
the majority and when they have a President.
  It won't surprise anyone to hear that they are not limiting their 
obstruction campaign to executive branch nominees. In fact, looking at 
the judicial branch shows that this is part of a long-term obstruction 
strategy. In February 2001, just days after the previous Republican 
President took office, the Senate Democratic leader said they would use 
``any means necessary'' to obstruct the President's nominees. A few 
months later Democrats huddled in Florida to plot how, as the New York 
Times described it, to ``change the ground rules'' of the confirmation 
process. And change the ground rules is exactly what they did.
  For two centuries, the confirmation ground rules called for reserving 
time-consuming rollcall votes for controversial nominees so that 
Senators could record their opposition. Nominations with little or no 
opposition were confirmed more efficiently by voice vote or unanimous 
consent.
  Democrats have literally turned the confirmation process inside out. 
Before 2001, the Senate used a rollcall vote to confirm just 4 
percent--4 percent--of judicial nominees and only 20 percent of those 
rollcall votes were unopposed nominees.
  During the Bush Administration, after Democrats changed the ground 
rules, the Senate confirmed more than 60 percent of judicial nominees 
by rollcall vote, and more than 85 percent of those rollcall votes were 
on unopposed nominees.
  Today, with a Republican President again in office, Democrats are 
still trying to change the confirmation ground rules. The confirmation 
last week of David Nye to be a U.S. district judge was a prime example. 
The vote to end debate on the Nye nomination was 97 to 0. In other 
words, every Senator, including every Democrat, voted to end

[[Page 11231]]

the debate. Most people with common sense would be asking why the 
cloture vote was held at all and why the delay.
  But Democrats did not stop there. Even after a unanimous cloture 
vote, they insisted on the full 30 hours of postcloture debate time 
provided for under Senate rules. To top it off, the vote to confirm the 
nomination was 100 to 0.
  I don't want anyone to miss this. Democrats demanded a vote on ending 
a debate none of them wanted, and then they refused to end the debate 
they had just voted to terminate--all of this on a nomination that 
every Democrat supported. That is changing the confirmation ground 
rules.
  Only four of the previous 275 cloture votes on nominations had been 
unanimous. In every previous case, whatever the reason was for the 
cloture vote in the first place, the Senate proceeded promptly to a 
confirmation vote.
  In 2010, for example, the Senate confirmed President Obama's 
nomination of Barbara Keenan to the Fourth Circuit 2 hours after 
unanimously voting to end debate.
  In 2006 the Senate confirmed the nomination of Kent Jordan to the 
Third Circuit less than 3 hours after unanimously ending debate.
  In 2002 the Senate confirmed by voice vote the nomination of Richard 
Carmona to be Surgeon General less than 1 hour after unanimously ending 
debate.
  The Nye nomination was the first time the Senate unanimously invoked 
cloture on a U.S. district court nominee. This was the first time there 
was a unanimous vote to end debate on any nomination on which the 
minority refused to allow a prompt confirmation vote.
  Here is another chart that shows the percent confirmed by rollcall 
vote during the Clinton administration, the George W. Bush 
administration, and the Obama administration. Here we have the Trump 
administration, and, as you can see, they are not confirming his 
nominees even if they are qualified and the Democrats admit it. No 
matter how my friends across the aisle try to change the subject, these 
facts are facts.
  While the Senate used time-consuming rollcall votes to confirm less 
than 10 percent of the previous three Presidents' executive branch 
nominees, under President Trump, it is nearly 90 percent.
  I admit the Democrats are bitter about the Trump win. I understand 
that. Everybody on their side expected Hillary Clinton to win. Many on 
our side expected her to win as well. But she didn't. President Trump 
is now President, and he did win, and he is doing a good job of 
delivering people up here to the Senate for confirmation.
  This is not how the confirmation process is supposed to work.
  The Constitution makes Senate confirmation a condition for 
Presidential appointments. This campaign of obstruction is exactly what 
the Senate Democrats once condemned. Further poisoning and politicizing 
the confirmation process only damages the Senate, distorts the 
separation of powers, and undermines the ability of the President to do 
what he was elected to do.
  I hope our colleagues on the other side will wise up and realize that 
what they are doing is destructive to the Senate, harmful to the 
Senate, and it is a prelude to what can happen when they get the 
Presidency. I don't want to see that happen on the Republican side.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. President, to change the subject, I would like to speak about the 
effort to reform our Nation's Tax Code. Last week, I came to the floor 
to give what I promised would be the first in an ongoing series of 
statements about tax reform. Today, I would like to give the second 
speech on that subject in this series.
  As I have said before, while there are tax reform discussions ongoing 
between congressional leaders and the administration, I expect there to 
be a robust and substantive tax reform process here in the Senate, one 
that will give interested Members--hopefully from both parties--an 
opportunity to contribute to the final product. I anticipate that, at 
the very least, the members of the Finance Committee will want to 
engage fully in this effort.
  I have been working to make the case for tax reform for the last 6 
years, ever since I became the lead Republican on the Senate Finance 
Committee. This current round of floor statements is a continuation of 
that effort.
  Last week, I spoke on the need to reduce the U.S. corporate tax rate 
in order to grow our economy, create jobs, and make American businesses 
more competitive. Today's topic is closely related to that one. Today, 
I want to talk about the need to reform our international tax system.
  Over the last couple of decades, we have enjoyed a rapid advancement 
in technology and communication, which has been a great benefit to 
everyone and has improved the quality of life for people all over the 
world. Unfortunately, our tax system has failed to evolve along with 
everything else.
  For example, in the modern world, business assets have become 
increasingly more mobile. Assets like capital, intellectual property, 
and even labor can now be moved from one country to another with 
relative ease and simplicity. Assets that are relatively immobile--
those that cannot be easily moved--are becoming increasingly rare. The 
Tax Code needs to change to reflect that fact.
  Our current corporate tax system imposes a heavy burden on 
businesses' assets, which creates an overwhelming incentive for 
companies to move their more mobile assets offshore, where income 
derived from the use of the assets is taxed at lower rates.
  As I noted last week, there is no shortage of lower tax alternatives 
in the world for companies incorporated in the United States. It does 
not take a rocket scientist to understand this concept. All other 
things being equal, if there are two countries that tax businesses at 
substantially different rates, companies in the country with higher tax 
rates will have a major incentive to move taxable assets to the country 
with lower rates. That dynamic only moves in one direction, as there 
are not many companies that are looking to move to higher tax 
countries, like the United States, from lower tax jurisdictions. This 
is not just a theory; this has been happening for years.
  An inversion, if you will recall, is a transaction in which two 
companies merge, and the resulting combined entity is incorporated 
offshore. Let me repeat some numbers that I cited last week. In the 20 
years between 1983 and 2003, there were just 29 corporate inversions 
out of the United States. In the 11 years between 2003 and 2014, there 
were 47 inversions--nearly double the number in half the amount of 
time. That number includes companies that are household names in the 
United States. This is happening in large part because of the perverse 
incentives embedded in our corporate tax system and the stupidity of us 
in the Congress to not solve this problem.
  Keep in mind that I am only talking about inversions. There are also 
foreign takeovers of U.S. companies, not to mention arrangements that 
include earnings stripping and profit shifting. The collective result 
has been a massive erosion of the U.S. tax base and, perhaps more 
importantly, decreased economic activity here at home.
  Make no mistake--our foreign competitors are fully aware of these 
incentives. They have recognized that lowering corporate tax rates can 
help them lure economic activity into their locations. Yet, in the face 
of this competition, the U.S. tax system has remained virtually frozen.
  As I noted last week, reducing the corporate tax rate would help 
alleviate these problems, but more will be required, including reforms 
to our international tax system.
  Currently, the United States uses what is generally referred to as a 
worldwide tax system for international tax, which means that U.S. 
multinationals pay the U.S. corporate tax on domestic earnings as well 
as on earnings acquired abroad. Taxes on those offshore earnings are 
generally deferred so long as the earnings are kept

[[Page 11232]]

offshore and are only taxed upon repatriation to the United States 
after accounting for foreign tax credits and the like.
  Put simply, this type of system is antiquated. The vast majority of 
our foreign counterparts have already done away with worldwide taxation 
and have converted to a territorial system. Generally speaking, a 
territorial system is one in which multinational companies pay tax only 
on earnings derived from domestic sources.
  By clinging to its worldwide tax system and a punitively high 
corporate tax rate, the United States has severely diminished the 
ability of its multinational companies to compete in the world 
marketplace. Because U.S.-based companies are subject to worldwide 
taxation while their global competitors are subject to territorial 
taxation systems, U.S. companies all too often end up having to pay 
more taxes than their foreign competitors, putting them at a distinct 
competitive disadvantage.
  Generally speaking, foreign-based companies pay taxes only once at 
the tax rate of the country from which they have derived the specific 
income. A U.S. multinational, on the other hand, generally pays taxes 
on offshore income at the rate set by the source country but then gets 
hit again--and at a punitively high rate--when it repatriates its 
earnings back to America.
  This is stupidity in its highest sense. This needs to change. It is 
not only Republicans who are saying that; many Democrats have 
recognized this issue as well. For example, I will cite the Finance 
Committee's bipartisan working group on international tax, which is 
cochaired by Senators Portman and Schumer, our ranking minority leader, 
which examined these issues thoroughly and produced a report in 2015. 
In that report, after noting that most industrialized countries have 
lower corporate rates and territorial systems, this bipartisan group of 
Senators said: ``This means that no matter what jurisdiction a U.S. 
multinational is competing in, it is at a competitive disadvantage.''
  The report by Senators Portman and Schumer and the members of their 
working group also referred to something called the lock-out effect. 
Simply put, the lock-out effect refers to the incentives U.S. companies 
have to hold foreign earnings and make investments offshore in order to 
avoid the punitive U.S. corporate tax. This is not a dodge or a tax 
hustle on the part of these companies; they are simply doing what the 
Tax Code tells them to do. The Tax Code essentially tells U.S. 
companies: You can have $100 in Ireland, say, or you can have $65 in 
the United States. Well, no surprise here--companies generally opt to 
have $100 in Ireland.
  Currently, a huge amount of capital--as much as $2.5 trillion or 
maybe even more--that is held by U.S. multinational companies is 
effectively locked out of the United States and is unavailable for 
investment here at home. However, as Senators Schumer and Portman and 
their colleagues on the international tax working group noted, those 
funds can easily be used to grow the economies of those foreign 
countries that have kept their tax codes up to date.
  These are massive problems, and if we are going to put together an 
effective tax reform package and be competitive, we will have to find a 
way to tackle these issues. The most obvious way, of course, would be 
with a combination of reducing our corporate tax rates, transitioning 
to a territorial tax system, and ensuring protection of the U.S. tax 
base from things like earnings stripping and profit shifting. That 
approach, as it turns out, has bipartisan support.
  These matters represent a significant portion of our tax reform 
efforts, and we already know it is one on which Republicans and 
Democrats can agree, at least in concept. In other words, there is 
ample reason for our Democratic colleagues to join Republicans and for 
Republicans to join Democrats in the tax reform discussions.
  These issues are not just important for faceless corporations or tax 
planners; they are important for American workers who are up and down 
the income scale. Anyone who is hoping to have a job and opportunities 
here in the United States and not somewhere else has an interest in 
reforming our international tax system. If we pass up this current 
opportunity to address these issues, people should expect to see more 
and more economic activity and the headquarters and supporting staff of 
more household-name companies moved outside the United States.
  With bipartisan recognition of the need for reform and agreement on 
international concepts already having been displayed, we owe it to the 
American people to work together and fix this problem.
  As I have said multiple times, I hope my friends on the other side of 
the aisle will be willing to work with us on tax reform, but if they 
decline--and, sadly, we have seen some indication that they will--
Republicans will need to be ready to take steps to fix these problems. 
I think we will be ready. Indeed, I think we are more than up to the 
challenge. I hope we do something about these important issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for the 
recognition.
  Colleagues, the new CBO score is out on, I guess, version 4.5 or 
5.5--it is hard to keep track of the bill to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act--and nothing has changed. This proposal, which is a moral and 
intellectual dumpster fire, is still a disaster.
  Here is what the CBO says about the bill that is currently being 
reworked behind closed doors by my Republican colleagues. The CBO says 
that, immediately, 15 million people would lose coverage by next year. 
That is a humanitarian catastrophe. It is something this country has 
never witnessed before--that number of people losing coverage in that 
short a period of time. Our emergency rooms would be overwhelmed as 
they would be unable to deal with the scope of that kind of 
humanitarian need. Ultimately, the number would rise to 22 million at 
the end of the 10-year window. We know it will be far bigger than that 
in the second 10 years because that is when the worst of the Medicaid 
cuts will happen, but 22 million is a lot of folks. It is no different 
than in the previous version, which was 23 million, or in the House's 
bill, which somehow got a majority vote in that place despite 24 
million people losing health insurance, according to the CBO.
  Today, 90 percent of Americans are covered by health insurance. The 
CBO says that number will go all the way down to 82 percent. I have 
heard my friend Senator Cornyn complain on this floor year after year 
that the ACA still leaves millions of Americans uncovered. This would 
make it even worse.
  When you get down to look at what happens to individual Americans, it 
gets even more frightening. Let me give an example of how this bill 
would dramatically increase premiums on individuals who are currently 
insured through the private market.
  A lot of the coverage losses happen because of this assault on 
Medicaid, but lots of folks who have private coverage would not be able 
to afford it any longer. If you are a 64-year-old who is making, let's 
say, $55,000, that is over three times the Federal poverty level. In a 
lot of places, you can live on $56,000. Today, that individual is 
paying about a $6,700 premium. Under the Republican healthcare bill, 
that individual would be paying $18,000 in premiums. That is an 
increase of 170 percent. That is just one individual.
  The bottom line is that, if you are older and you are less wealthy, 
you are going to be paying a whole lot more under this proposal.
  Despite all of the guarantees made by Republicans and this President 
that under their plan, costs would go down, that deductibles would go 
down and premiums would go down, the CBO says the exact opposite. It 
says that, especially if you are sort of middle-income and are 50 or 
older, your premiums will go up dramatically.
  This is a terrible bill. It does not solve a single problem that the 
Republicans said they were trying to fix.

[[Page 11233]]

More people lose insurance, costs go up, and quality does not get 
better. This is a terrible piece of legislation.
  We are at this very frightening time in the negotiations when changes 
are being made to this bill not to improve policy but to try to win 
individual votes. That is what is happening as we speak. Behind closed 
doors, small changes are being made to this bill to try to win the 
votes of individual Senators, giving them specific amounts of money for 
their State, and their State alone, in order to win their vote. That is 
shameful, and it is no way to reorder one-fifth of the American 
economy. We are talking about 20 percent of the U.S. economy. And 
changes are being made to this bill right now that have nothing to do 
with good healthcare, that have only to do with winning individual 
votes to try to get to 50, because Republicans refuse to work with 
Democrats--refuse to work with us. So instead of building a product 
that could get big bipartisan support, Republicans are now down to a 
handful of their Members and are trying to find ways to deliver amounts 
of money to those Members' States in order to win their vote.
  There is a special fund in the latest version of the bill for 
insurance companies in Alaska that was not in the previous version of 
the bill. Now, all of these provisions get written in a way that if you 
are an average, ordinary American who decides to take a couple of hours 
of your time to read the bill, you would never know that it was a 
specific fund for Alaska because it doesn't say ``Alaska.'' It sets up 
a whole bunch of requirements that a State has to meet to get this 
special fund for insurance companies, and only one State fits that 
description, and it is Alaska.
  There is a change in this bill from previous law that addresses 
States that were late Medicaid expanders, States that expanded into the 
new Medicaid population allowed for under the Affordable Care Act but 
did it late in the process. The previous version didn't give those 
States credit when establishing the baseline for the new Medicaid 
reductions, but miraculously this new bill has a specific provision to 
allow for two States that were late Medicaid expanders to be able to 
get billions of additional dollars sent to their State. Those States 
are Alaska and Louisiana--two States.
  There is a new provision in the latest version of the bill that makes 
a very curious change to the way in which DISH payments are sent to 
States--that is the Disproportionate Share Hospital Program that helps 
hospitals pay for the costs for people without insurance. Not 
coincidentally, it is a change that was advocated by one Senator from 
one State: Florida. The change will disproportionately benefit the 
State of Florida, and it is now in the new version.
  These are not changes that help the American healthcare system. They 
are not changes that benefit my State or the State of the majority of 
Members here. Some of these changes don't benefit 98 of us; they only 
benefit 2 of us. And they are in this version of the bill in order to 
win votes, not to make good policy.
  We heard word this morning of a new fund that was invented in the 
middle of the night last evening that would supposedly help States that 
are Medicaid expansion States transition their citizens who are 
currently on Medicaid to the private market. Now there are reports that 
it is a $200 billion fund, and that is a lot of money. It sounds like a 
lot of money, and it is a lot of money, but it would represent 17 
percent of the funds that are being cut to States, and it would only be 
a temporary bandaid on a much bigger problem. Why? Because CBO says 
definitively that the subsidies in this bill for people who want to buy 
private insurance are so meager that virtually no one who is kicked off 
of Medicaid will be able to afford those new premiums. That is why the 
numbers are so sweeping in their scale--22 million people losing 
healthcare insurance.
  So even if you get a little bit of money to help a group of 
individuals in a handful of States transition, when that money runs 
out--and it will--they are back in the same place. All they are doing 
is temporarily postponing the enormity of the pain that gets delivered. 
And once again, this provision being delivered to only States with 
Medicaid expansion populations is being targeted in order to win votes, 
not in order to improve the entirety of the healthcare system.
  Senator Corker called out his colleagues today. He said that he was 
willing to vote for the motion to proceed, but he was growing 
increasingly uncomfortable with a bill that was increasingly--I think 
his word was ``incoherent.'' That is what happens when you get to the 
point where you have a deeply unpopular bill that everybody in the 
country hates and you need to put amounts of money in it to get a 
handful of additional votes. It becomes incoherent. And this was an 
incoherent bill to begin with. It is hard to make this bill more 
incoherent, but that is what is happening when these individual funds 
are being set up for Alaska, Louisiana, and Florida.
  We could solve all of this if Republicans decided to work with 
Democrats. If we set aside the big tax cuts for the wealthy and the 
pillorying of the Medicaid Program, if we try to fix the real problems 
Americans face today, we could do it on a bipartisan way. And wouldn't 
that be great.
  I get it that there is enormous political advantage for Democrats to 
sit on the sidelines and watch Republicans vote for a bill that has a 
15-percent approval rating, just like there was political advantage for 
Republicans to sit on the sidelines and not do anything to help 
Democrats provide insurance to 20 million more Americans. Healthcare is 
a very thorny political issue, but it doesn't have to be that way. We 
could sit down together and own this problem and the solution together, 
and we could end healthcare being a permanent political cudgel that 
just gets used every 5 to 10 years by one side to beat the other side 
over the head.
  We are Senators too. We got elected just like our Republican friends 
did. Why won't Republicans let Democrats into the room, especially 
after this bill has failed over and over again to get 50 votes from 
Republicans? We don't have a communicable disease. We aren't going to 
physically hurt you if you let us into that room. We are not lying when 
we say we have a desire to compromise.
  Democrats aren't going to walk into a negotiating room and demand a 
single-payer healthcare system. We understand that we are going to have 
to give Republicans some of what they want; maybe that is flexibility 
in the benefit design that is offered on these exchanges. But 
Republicans are going to have to give Democrats some of what we want, 
which is the end to this madness--an administration that is trying to 
sabotage our healthcare system and destroy the healthcare our citizens 
get. But that could be a compromise. It is not illegal to meet with us. 
There are 48 of us; there are not 12 of us. My constituents in 
Connecticut deserve to have a voice in how one-fifth of the American 
economy is going to be transformed.
  I know a lot of my Republican friends want to do this. I have talked 
with Republican Senators who say: Well, when this process falls apart, 
we want to work with you. It is falling apart, because the only way 
Republicans are going to get the 50 votes is by making these shameful 
changes--specific funding streams for specific States in order to get a 
handful of votes--and that is not how this place should work. Maybe 
that is how things happened here 100 years ago, but it is not how 
things should happen today.
  So once again I will beg my Republican colleagues to stop this 
partisan closed-door exercise and come and work with Democrats. We can 
do this together. We can own it together. We will have plenty of other 
stuff left to fight about if we find a way to agree on a path forward 
for America's healthcare system.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I want to 
commend my colleague from Connecticut for a very thoughtful speech. I 
think he has made the case that the challenge ahead

[[Page 11234]]

is really a two-part drill--first, to stop something that is especially 
ill advised, and second, to then move to a better way that really 
focuses on sunlight and bipartisanship. So I thank my colleague for his 
very thoughtful comments.


                     Thinking About Senator McCain

  Mr. President, I am here to speak about healthcare, but before I turn 
to that subject, I want to spend a few minutes talking about our 
wonderful colleague John McCain.
  Some of the most satisfying moments I have had in public life have 
been serving with John McCain. When I came to the U.S. Senate--Oregon's 
first new U.S. Senator in almost 30 years--I had the honor of being 
chosen to serve on the Senate Commerce Committee, which was chaired by 
John McCain. And what an exhilarating way to begin serving in the 
Senate. We tackled big, meaty, important issues of the future--the 
question of multiple and discriminatory taxes on internet commerce. We 
focused, for example, on Enron and what went wrong there when so many 
consumers were ripped off. We dug into consumer rights. John McCain was 
an early advocate for saying that if you rode on an airplane, it didn't 
mean you ought to sacrifice basic consumer rights, and some of those 
same issues are getting more attention today.
  Then, of course, we built on this floor the Y2K measure. When 
everybody was so concerned about what would happen at that time, 
Senator McCain gave me the honor of being his Democratic partner in 
putting together a bill. We had the benefit of incredible work from the 
private sector and first responders and smarter Federal policies. We 
all know that some of the calamitous predictions about Y2K didn't come 
to pass.
  John McCain did some extraordinary work at that time. As a young U.S. 
Senator, what a thrill it was to be able to be involved with a real 
American hero on some of those first experiences I had in the Senate.
  As we begin to absorb the news of last night, what struck me is that 
now we are counting on John McCain's legendary strength to give cancer 
its toughest fight ever--toughest fight ever.
  I just wanted to come to the floor today and say we are rooting for 
you, dear friend. We are rooting for you and Cindy and your wonderful 
family, and we are thinking about you this afternoon.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, it is my sense that if you thought the TrumpCare 
debate in the Senate had met its end on Tuesday, it is pretty obvious 
you ought to be thinking again. The zombie stirs once more.
  The latest attempt by the majority to cobble together 50 votes, 
according to reports, comes down to waving a $200 billion slush fund in 
front of Senators from States that expanded Medicaid under the 
Affordable Care Act.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, I am very 
pleased that the Presiding Officer joined the committee this year. We 
have studied this one-time slush fund, and the theory, of course, is 
that it is supposed to be enticing enough for a Senator to vote for a 
bill that still slashes Medicaid to the bone.
  Let's be realistic about what the slush fund represents in the 
context of the overall plan. Senate Republicans are steering tens of 
millions of Americans toward a cliff and are offering the world's 
smallest pillow to break the fall.
  Before I go further on the specifics of what the majority has on 
offer, I want to step back and take a look at what the American people 
have been subjected to over the course of this debate. The reason I 
want to do this is that, even by Beltway standards here in Washington, 
this is the absolute worst of this city.
  In the crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the ACA, there has 
been the AHCA--the House TrumpCare bill. That is the one that earned 
the big victory ceremony with the President of the United States in the 
Rose Garden. Next, we had the BCRA--the Senate TrumpCare bill. Then, 
there was a second version of the BCRA. Then, along came something 
called the ORRA, the bill I have called ``repeal and ruin,'' which got 
its start back in 2015. Then, this morning, the public got a look at a 
third version of the BCRA. My sense is, if you are having coffee in 
Coos Bay, OR, or in Roseburg over lunch or something like that, your 
head is going to be spinning as you hear this news.
  I also want to make sure folks know about the strategy that has come 
out of the White House over the last few days. The President first 
endorsed the Senate's TrumpCare bill, but then it was repeal only. 
Then, while the country watched the administration sabotage the 
Affordable Care Act, the President said that everybody ought to just 
sit back and watch what happens. Then it was back to calling for the 
Senate majority to pass TrumpCare.
  Nobody in this Chamber, with the possible exception of Senate 
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, can claim to really know what is 
coming down the pike on American healthcare. So with the health and 
well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans at stake, this shadowy, 
garbled, and wretched process really just leaves your jaw on the floor.
  Senate Republicans seem to be speeding toward a vote on something. As 
I mentioned, there is the prospect of this $200 billion slush fund 
being dangled out there to help round up votes. My sense is that this 
slush fund is of zero consolation to the millions of Americans who live 
in States that didn't expand Medicaid. It is of zero consolation to the 
tens of millions of middle-class families who are going to have their 
tax cuts or healthcare ripped away and see their premiums skyrocket. It 
will be of zero consolation to middle-class families who are panicked 
over whether they are going to be able to take care of elderly parents 
and grandparents when long-term care through Medicaid is cut.
  Make no mistake about what this slush fund really does; it just 
delays a little bit of the pain for a short time in States that 
expanded Medicaid. But the slush fund is going to run dry. That is a 
fact. State budgets are going to get hit like a wrecking ball. That is 
the reason so many Governors are so unhappy with what is on offer.
  There is no escaping the consequences of whatever the Senate passes. 
If you had objections to TrumpCare or a repeal-only bill yesterday, 
this doesn't change a thing.
  A few hours ago, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--for 
folks who don't follow the lingo and CBO, those are our nonpartisan 
umpires. They put out an analysis of the third version of the Senate 
Republican healthcare bill. If you were hoping that was the charm, the 
news doesn't exactly help your cause.
  The CBO found that it is still going to send premiums through the 
roof. The new version is going to kick 22 million Americans off their 
healthcare. It is still going to make healthcare unaffordable for 
millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. That is especially 
troubling to me--and I know the Presiding Officer is very interested in 
the policy foundations of these big issues. Before the Presiding 
Officer came to this body, I worked with one of our former colleagues, 
and we put together what is still the only comprehensive bipartisan 
health reform--seven Democrats, seven Republicans--that has been 
introduced in this body. One of the priorities that those Senators--and 
some of those colleagues on the other side of the aisle are still here; 
they were cosponsors of this bill, and many of the Democratic sponsors 
are still here. There was bipartisan agreement that there should be an 
airtight, loophole-free commitment to protecting people with 
preexisting conditions. As I said, seven Democrats, seven Republicans 
signed off on that bill. A number of them from both sides still serve 
in the U.S. Senate today.
  Now what is being discussed is an approach that would make healthcare 
unaffordable for millions of people with preexisting conditions, really 
taking a big step back--and I have heard my colleague speak about this, 
commenting on TV shows and the like--toward the days when healthcare in 
America was for the healthy and the wealthy. That is what you get if 
you don't have airtight protections for

[[Page 11235]]

those with preexisting conditions, if you don't have what we had in our 
original bill by seven Democrats, seven Republicans--airtight 
protections, loophole-free protections for those with preexisting 
conditions. If you don't have it, you are marching back to the days 
when healthcare was for the healthy and wealthy, where you could not 
move to another job if you got a great opportunity because you had a 
preexisting condition. You were immobilized. That is where this is 
going with the proposal to make healthcare unaffordable for millions of 
people with preexisting conditions, turning back the clock, moving away 
from what has strong bipartisan support in this Chamber with Senators 
on both sides who are still here.
  For those who care about the affordability of health coverage, there 
is a statistic that really leaves you without words. Under the Senate 
Republican bill, in 2026, a middle-aged American who brings home 
$26,500 annually will face a deductible of $13,000--$13,000. If you are 
watching this, remember that figure the next time you hear that the 
Senate Republican bill lowers costs or puts the patient at the center 
of care. If this bill becomes law, that individual with a $13,000 
deductible is one bad injury or diagnosis away from personal 
bankruptcy. How does that figure compare to the system on the books 
today, you might ask? Under the Affordable Care Act, that same 
individual's deductible is $800.
  The other option being put forward by Senate Republican leaders is a 
repeal-only strategy, and they claim it would have a 2-year transition. 
But the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office make clear that 
the idea of a transition after a repeal bill passes is a fantasy.
  ``Repeal and run'' means that 17 million Americans lose coverage in 
the first year; 32 million Americans lose coverage within a decade; 
premiums in private market plans double. It is easy to see why. My 
colleague in the Chair, the Presiding Officer, knows so well about the 
signals that are sent to the private marketplace; we are talking about 
the marketplace. If you are pouring gasoline on the fires of 
uncertainty in the private insurance sector and people can't plan and 
they can't calculate, what will happen during this 2-year transition? 
You are going to have bedlam in the marketplace. It is a prescription 
for trouble, and premiums and private market plans will double.
  The numbers I am talking about are real lives. I was the director of 
the Gray Panthers senior citizens group for almost 7 years before I was 
elected to the Congress. This is my background. As I started to see 
government reports and the like, I came to realize that those reports--
all those facts and figures on pieces of paper, long sheets of paper, 
figure after figure--are not really what this debate is all about. This 
is a debate about people, about their hopes and aspirations and what 
they want for the future. Families are worried, for example, about how 
they are going to pay for the care of an older parent. I think about 
those seniors I met as director of the Gray Panthers. They did nothing 
wrong. They scrimped and saved, and they didn't go on the special 
vacation. They didn't buy the boat. They did everything right. They 
educated their kids and tried to sock away a little money. What we know 
is, growing old in America is expensive. In spite of being careful 
about costs all their lives, when a spouse needed extra care or they 
had early onset of healthcare problems, they went through all the money 
they saved. Then they needed Medicaid.
  Medicaid now picks up the costs of two out of three nursing home beds 
in America. What is not known is very often seniors need not just that 
care, but they need home and community-based care. They need a 
continuum of services so they get the right kind of care at the right 
time.
  They are looking at this bill. They are saying this is going to make 
my prospects for being able to afford care--whether it is nursing 
homes, home and community-based services--an awful lot harder to figure 
out in the days ahead.
  We have young people who have been through cancer scares. We have 
single parents who work multiple jobs to put food on the table. This is 
what I am hearing about at home. When I had the good fortune of being 
chosen Oregon's first new Senator in almost 30 years, I made a pledge 
that I would have an open meeting, open to everybody in every one of my 
State's counties. We have 36 counties in Oregon.
  This year, so far, I have had 54 open-to-all town meetings. Each one 
of them lasts 90 minutes. There are no speeches. People say what they 
want. They ask a question. It is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it 
to be. They are educating me, and I am trying to respond. I am trying 
to take back to Washington, DC, which often strikes them as a logic-
free zone--I am trying to take their thoughts back to Washington, DC. 
Frankly, my highest priority has been to find common ground with people 
of common sense on the Finance Committee, especially in the healthcare 
area, because long ago I decided if you and your loved ones don't have 
your health, nothing else really matters.
  At those 54 town meetings--they have been in counties where Donald 
Trump won by large numbers or Hillary Clinton won by large numbers--
each one of those meetings has been dominated by the fears of Americans 
of all walks of life, of all political philosophies worried about what 
is going to happen to their healthcare.
  Frankly, their worry seems to be just as great in rural communities 
that President Trump won by large majorities because Medicaid expansion 
in my State has been enormously helpful. So many Oregon communities, 
under 10,000 in population, have been able to use Medicaid expansion at 
a hospital to maybe hire another person. It has really been a lifeline. 
They have an awful lot of people between 55 and 64. They are going to 
be charged five times as much as young people here, and they are going 
to get fewer tax credits to deal with it.
  In all of these counties--counties won by Donald Trump, counties won 
by Hillary Clinton--fear about healthcare has been front and center. 
People are fearful and obviously would like some clarity, some sense of 
what is coming next.
  One of our colleagues whom I do a lot of work with, Senator Thune--a 
member of the Finance Committee and his party's leadership--spoke to a 
reporter a little bit ago. He couldn't say what the Senate would take 
up, if the first procedural vote passes next week, whether it would be 
TrumpCare or a straight repeal bill.
  My sense is, everybody is being asked to walk into this abyss on 
healthcare but particularly colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
To be in the dark about what is on offer a few days before a vote that 
affects hundreds of millions of Americans, one-sixth of the American 
economy--for them to be in the dark, someone like myself, the ranking 
Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee that has jurisdiction over 
Medicare and Medicaid and tax credits, strikes me as very odd, even by 
the standards of the beltway.
  The American people are now left guessing about what comes next. The 
only guarantee, should the first procedural vote succeed, is that both 
options Senate Republican leaders put on the table are going to raise 
premiums, make care unaffordable for those with preexisting conditions, 
and leave tens of millions of Americans without health coverage.
  I want to repeat a message that I and other Democratic Senators have 
been delivering for days. The choice between TrumpCare and straight 
repeal of the Affordable Care Act is false. Nobody is being forced to 
choose between calamity and disaster.
  Democrats and Republicans absolutely can work together on the 
healthcare challenges facing the country. As soon as there is a 
willingness to drop this our-way-or-the-highway approach--this partisan 
approach known as reconciliation--there will be a good-faith effort on 
our side to find common ground.
  I heard enough of the back-and-forth in this debate to know there is 
a bipartisan interest; for example, in flexibility for States. I know 
the President

[[Page 11236]]

of the Senate is especially interested in this issue--flexibility for 
the States. He has given it a lot of thought. I want him to know I am 
always open to talking to him about this issue.
  In the bill I described earlier--seven Democrats, seven Republicans--
we had a special section which became law in the Affordable Care Act 
that in effect provided for what are called innovation waivers. The 
theory--and I am sure my colleague in the Chair has been thinking about 
these issues as well--is based on the idea we both have heard for 
years, conservatives have said, if those folks in Washington will just 
give us the freedom, we can find better ways to cover people, hold down 
the costs, and make what works in Louisiana work for us, and folks in 
Oregon can pursue what works for folks in Oregon.
  I said, at the time, that every single bill that I would be part of 
in this debate about fixing American healthcare would have a provision 
that would respond to this argument that the States are the 
laboratories of democracy. We would have a provision that would allow 
considerable flexibility for States to take their own approaches.
  I continue to feel very strongly about it. I wrote an entire section 
of my comprehensive bill to give States flexibility, and fortunately it 
was included in the Affordable Care Act. There ought to be room to work 
on these kinds of issues, State flexibility. There ought to be room to 
work on a bipartisan basis with respect to bringing down prescription 
drug costs.
  I have indicated to the President of the Senate, I think the lack of 
transparency in the pharmaceutical market has really been a major 
factor in the reason that our people get hammered by escalating drug 
prices.
  We have heard for so long that some of the middlemen--they are called 
pharmaceutical benefit managers. They came into being a few years ago. 
They said: We will negotiate for businesses or States or labor unions. 
We will negotiate a better deal for the consumer.
  Consumers said: Hey, we will see that in our pocketbook. At home we 
would see that at a pharmacy, at Fred Meyer or Rite Aid or Walgreens or 
any of our pharmacies. These are all big pharmacies around the country. 
Right now, as of this afternoon, we don't know what these middlemen put 
in their pocket and what they put in our pocket.
  There ought to be an opportunity to find common ground. I think there 
ought to be a chance for Democrats and Republicans to work together on 
approaches like my SPIKE bill, which says that when a big 
pharmaceutical company wants to drive up the prices, they should have 
to publicly justify why they are doing so.
  There ought to be ways for Democrats and Republicans to work together 
and bring down prescription drug costs. There certainly is bipartisan 
interest in getting more competition and more consumers into the 
insurance markets. That means more predictability and certainty.
  My view is, if you are serious about really helping to make the 
private insurance market robust, you have to stop this crusade to 
repeal the ACA. Insurers are making decisions right now. All eyes are 
on this body to bring certainty back to the marketplace.
  The reality is, there is only a very short time with respect to 2018 
premiums. I know there are Republican Senators who would like to tackle 
challenges on a bipartisan basis. The message my colleagues and I are 
sending on this side of the aisle is, there are a lot of open arms 
here. Instead of taking the partisan route and causing devastation in 
our healthcare system, let's work together to make healthcare better 
and more affordable for all Americans.
  I consider that kind of bipartisan cooperation to be the premier 
challenge of my time in public service, to work with colleagues, common 
sense, looking for common ground. I have heard one after another of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle state that in just the last few 
days.
  Let us set aside this partisan our-way-or-the-highway approach, opt 
for the alternative, which is more sunshine and more bipartisanship. I 
will pledge to you everything in my power on the Senate Finance 
Committee to bring that about.
  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. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Manufacturing

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, the White House started out this week with 
all kinds of activities on the White House grounds pertaining to things 
that we make here in America and the importance of manufacturing and, 
frankly, the kinds of good jobs that have traditionally come with 
manufacturing.
  When we have an economy that focuses on making things and growing 
things, that has always been the strongest economy for working American 
families--an economy that competes, an economy that produces. Where the 
Presiding Officer and I live in Louisiana and in Missouri, in the 
middle of the country and close to that great transportation corridor 
and close to the resources of the country, we always particularly 
thrive when we are in an economy that is focused on making things.
  With all of the other discussions this week, it would be a shame to 
not think about those products from every State that the President 
talked about this week, that were on the Capitol grounds, and that are 
reflective of companies that are almost brandnew and companies that are 
a century old, where people had figured out how to be competitive 
enough in what they were doing that they could make a living for 
themselves and lots of other people, doing just that. In fact, 
manufacturing employs 12.3 million people in the country today, 
including more than 260,000 people in my State of Missouri. There is no 
doubt that we benefit from those kinds of jobs.
  I was glad that in 2014 we were able to get the Revitalize American 
Manufacturing and Innovation Act signed into law. This was a new way, a 
new opportunity for businesses to link with each other and to link with 
training facilities, maybe research universities. You have to have that 
kind of public partner, as well, to see what we could be to be even 
more competitive than we are. When we looked at Germany and other 
countries, they were not only doing this sort of thing, but they were 
doing it in a way that made it really hard for us sometimes to keep up 
with that level of interaction between innovation and manufacturing, 
innovation and labor.
  Businesses are really very much impacted, jobs are very much impacted 
by the decisions that government ultimately sets the stage for. If you 
are going to make something in America today, the first two boxes I 
think you would have to check would be can you pay the utility bill and 
does the transportation system work with what you are trying to do. If 
you can't check those two boxes, no matter how great that workforce and 
that location might be, you are not going to take those jobs there. So 
government, either as a regulator or as a provider, is going to be very 
involved in whether you can pay the utility bill.
  That is why I was really glad to see the new director at the 
Environmental Protection Agency look at the power rule. The courts 
fortunately had already said you don't have the authority to do that--
only Congress can do what you want to do here--which is look at the 
power rule and look at States like many of our States in the middle of 
the country where, in my State, the so-called clean power rule would 
have doubled the utility bill for families and the places they work in 
about 10 or 12 years. By the way, nobody pays the utility bill for you. 
The utility bill is paid based on how many utilities you use. There is 
no mythical big government to come in and pay the utility bill unless 
we are going to have a totally different system than we have now. The 
utility bill would have doubled.

[[Page 11237]]

  I have often said that in the last three years in this fight to see 
that this didn't happen to Missouri families--and I said it again on 
the radio this morning in an interview, thinking that this fortunately 
had not happened--I said: If you want to test what happens if the 
utility bill is allowed to double because of some needless government 
action--and double before it has to because you are doing things before 
they have to be done--the next time you pay your utility bill, just as 
you are writing your checks out of your checkbook, pay it one more time 
and see what you are going to do with the rest of your family's money 
that month, which suddenly you can't do because you are paying the 
utility bill twice.
  There are ways--when we need to transition to some other kind of 
utility provider if we want to transition in fuels or sources or 
whatever--there are ways to do that. The way to do that is to say that 
the next time you have to build something, the next time you have to 
borrow money that the utility users are going to pay back over 20 or 30 
years, once you have paid for what you are doing now that has met all 
the requirements, you have to do it differently than what that silly 
rule would have said, because it would have said you have to pay for 
what you already have, but you have to also be paying for what you 
immediately had to replace it with.
  This would have been like if you had the CAFE standards, the miles-
per-gallon standards, if that same agency would have said: OK, we are 
going to have new miles-per-gallon standards and they are effective 
immediately, and if you have a car that doesn't meet those standards, 
you of course have to keep paying for your car, but you also have to 
have a new car. That is what we were about to tell utility users and 
families. And if you don't think that would have had an impact on jobs, 
you are just not thinking about jobs.
  There was a water rule, the waters of the United States, that would 
have done about the same thing. Both of those have been pushed back by 
the courts, and hopefully we are walking toward a more reasonable 
situation where we are thinking about how to accomplish the same goals 
in a way that lets families accomplish their dreams.
  Then the second thing, the transportation issue: Does the 
transportation system work for what you want to make? Can you get the 
material where you need to get it? Can you get a product in a way that 
continues to make you competitive? And the State and Federal Government 
and local governments are very, very much in charge of the decisions 
that make that environment whatever it is.
  So when we are thinking about ``Made in America,'' we have to think 
about those things. Then we have to think, with that infrastructure in 
place, what is the third and crucial piece of that puzzle coming 
together? It is a workforce that is competitive and prepared and an 
education system that is prepared to help with whatever comes next.
  If we think we know what the average person, or any person, is going 
to be doing and how they are going to be doing it 20 years from now, I 
suspect none of us are quite that able to predict what 20 years from 
now is going to look like. In fact, if we had thought about the way we 
do most of the work we do now 20 years ago, it would be amazing: Oh, it 
is just 20 years later, but we didn't have the cell phone, we didn't 
have an iPad, we didn't have a computer. There was nothing at the 
factory that did what that machine does right now. We have to have a 
workforce that is ready, and we have to do all we can to make that 
workforce ready.
  On the infrastructure front, we need to look not only at the 
infrastructure bill that is coming up, but also how many more tools can 
we put in the tool box. Senator Warner and I reintroduced the BRIDGE 
Act to provide one more tool to create more incentive for private 
sector partnerships, to do things differently than we have done them 
before. If we are going to get different results, we have to do 
different things. If we do just exactly what we have been doing, we are 
going to get just exactly what we have been getting.
  So as the President focuses, I think properly, on the kinds of 
American jobs that create stronger families and more opportunities, we 
don't want to lose this week without also thinking about those jobs, 
thinking about the 12.3 million Americans who work at making things, 
thinking about the more than a quarter of a million Missourians who do 
that. Think about the others who work at growing things and how an 
economy that makes things and grows things is a stronger economy than 
an economy where people just trade services with each other. There is 
nothing wrong with trading services, but if you do that on top of a 
productive economy, it has a much better likelihood for everyone 
involved to serve the people who provide the services, as well as the 
people who are out there making things that are competitive in the 
world to have better opportunities.
  I appreciate the President and Vice President this week calling 
attention to that important part of what we do as we move toward 
transportation and infrastructure and other things.


                Thoughts and Prayers for Senator McCain

  Mr. President, while I am on the floor, I want to mention for just a 
minute our friend, John McCain. I know lots of prayers have been said 
for Senator McCain and his family. Lots of stories today have been told 
and traded, and there are lots of stories to tell.
  When I was in the House for 14 years, I was often in brief meetings 
with Senator McCain. Frankly, I never grew to appreciate him anywhere 
near like I did when I had a chance to begin to work with him every 
day. For me, at least, he was an acquired taste. It took time to really 
see his strength, his tenacity, and to understand that irascibility was 
just part of who he is and part of his determination to make the 
country and the Congress and the Senate better.
  It would be hard to find anyone more determined or less fearful. In 
fact, someone in a recent debate in the last year or so said that 
Senator McCain had--I think a reporter said that Senator McCain had 
done something because he was afraid to do the other thing. When asked 
about it, Senator McCain said: Well, it has been a long time since I 
was afraid.
  He is a man who served his country day after day after day, and still 
does; a believer in what we stand for; someone who has traveled all 
over the world, as I have had a chance to travel to dangerous spots and 
other places. Over and over again, as I would get there, people would 
say: Here is what Senator McCain had to say when he was here. Here is 
what Senator McCain did when he was here. Senator McCain was here last 
week. He was there, always proud of the independence and determination 
and democracy and freedom that he stands for.
  We all know he is in a fight right now, but we all also know he is a 
fighter. He is not a man who surrenders. I know the prayers of not only 
the Senate but so many people all over the country and, frankly, all 
over the world go out to help John McCain as he faces this fight.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. 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. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of 
David Bernhardt as the next Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
  Mr. Bernhardt has shown that he is unwilling to fight for the long-
term conservation of our public lands and the responsible use of our 
public resources. By his own admission, he intends to be a big business 
yes-man for the Trump administration's extreme disregard for our 
environment and the human lives that are affected.
  President Trump promised to drain the swamp of DC, but with each day 
of this administration, this Republican-controlled Senate approves yet 
another corporate insider to help out big business. The decision to 
nominate Mr.

[[Page 11238]]

Bernhardt is no exception. He is another conflict-ridden, climate-
dismissing Trump appointee who favors profits over people.
  Let's look at his record. Mr. Bernhardt has extensive political 
experience in the Department of the Interior under the Bush 
administration, but in his tenure at the Department, including the 2 
years he oversaw the ethics division, the Department was awash in 
ethical scandals and scientific misconduct.
  And what did he do after he left government service? He scooted off 
to a lucrative lobbying firm to help Big Oil and other extraction 
companies maximize their profits by expanding offshore drilling and 
delaying air pollution limits on coal plants, regardless of the impact 
that would have on our children's future.
  Even Mr. Bernhardt isn't proud of his own record. Prior to his 
nomination, his lobbying firm bio bragged about recently helping 
corporations fight against the Endangered Species Act, supporting 
corporate interests in offshore drilling and exploration for fossil 
fuels, and helping mining companies pursue public lands for 
development. He openly bragged about recently representing ``an entity 
under investigation by a Federal Agency'' and ``entities accused of 
violating the Department of the Interior's regulations.'' He swaggered 
through Washington. That is, he swaggered right up until he was under 
consideration for the No. 2 spot at Interior. Now that he is in the 
public spotlight, he has scrubbed all those pro-industry, pro-pollution 
references from his bio. Now that the public is paying attention, he is 
putting out a clean image of a public servant who just happens to 
advise big corporations from time to time.
  Beyond the ties Mr. Bernhardt still has to industry, I am alarmed by 
his willingness to serve as the corporate rubberstamp that President 
Trump wants. Mr. Bernhardt is a walking conflict of interest who has 
taken one spin through the revolving door, and now he is coming back 
around again for a second pass.
  The Deputy Secretary serves at the pleasure of the President. But a 
Deputy Secretary--the No. 2 at the Department--is, first and foremost, 
bound to serve the American people and the mission of the Department. 
No President is properly served by a corporate yes-man, and Mr. 
Bernhardt's yes-man mentality was on full display during his 
confirmation hearing.
  When my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Al Franken, questioned Mr. 
Bernhardt about climate change at his nomination hearing, he was all 
too willing to dismiss the urgency of climate change, and he pushed 
aside the responsibility of the Department of the Interior to act. In 
defiance of accepted climate science, he stated:

       This President ran, he won on a particular policy 
     perspective. That perspective's not going to change to the 
     extent we have the discretion under the law to follow it.

  In other words, don't bother me with the facts; we will just stick to 
whatever President Trump tells us to do.
  But the rest of us can't ignore the facts. Our planet is getting 
hotter. The last 16 years were all among the hottest 17 years on 
record, and our seas are rising at an alarming rate. Our coasts are 
threatened by furious storm surges that can sweep away homes and 
devastate even our largest cities. Our economically disadvantaged 
communities, too often situated in low-lying floodplains, are one bad 
storm away from destruction. Our naval bases are under attack--not by 
enemy ships but by rising seas. Our food supplies and forests are 
threatened by droughts and wildfires that are becoming so common across 
the country that they barely even make the evening news.
  The effects of manmade climate change are all around us, and things 
will only continue to get worse at an accelerating pace if we don't do 
something about it. We can act, and one important step is saying no to 
corporate raiders who are seeking to exploit public lands and gamble 
with our children's future.
  President Trump thinks leadership is handing over management of our 
public lands to Big Oil and Big Coal executives who are looking to 
stuff their pockets while the getting is good. Mr. Bernhardt, a 
seasoned advocate for corporate interests, seems all too eager to 
please this President and corporate interests, no matter the cost to 
the American people. If President Trump's highest ranking agency 
officials are not brave enough to speak even a little truth to power 
about this President's climate delusions, then, who will?
  The American people deserve leadership at the Department of the 
Interior--leadership that is committed to ensuring that our public 
resources and our public lands are preserved for future generations of 
Americans. The American people deserve leadership that fights back when 
the President seeks to cut thousands of jobs at the Department of the 
Interior or offers a budget that critically undermines the Department's 
mission and threatens our public lands.
  The American people deserve leadership at the Department of the 
Interior--leadership that works for the people--and that is not David 
Bernhardt.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________