Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon with my colleague from Maine to talk about an important issue, as well, something we had long planned to introduce today and did so this morning--the reintroduction of a Senate bill focusing on apprentice programs.

My colleague Senator Collins and I, in the past Congress, wanted to make sure people understood how important we thought the apprentice program was, and we introduced legislation then to create a Federal incentive for apprentice programs. We are coming back now in this Congress and reintroducing this legislation.

I know there has been a lot of talk about apprentices this week. We just had a roundtable discussion this morning with some of our business and labor leaders talking about the skills gap and the need for more apprentice investing as it relates to manufacturing. I know the President is doing some discussion of the apprentice program too. Obviously, it is no surprise to anybody in America that the President knows--or at least has used--the word ``apprentice'' in a pretty aggressive way throughout his career. So I hope he will tune in and listen to what my colleague from Maine and I have to say about this.

We are saying that it is time in America to have a Federal priority on apprentices; that is, the first-ever tax incentive for hiring an apprentice. Why do we want a Federal priority? Because we know that in America we need to skill and train a workforce for tomorrow, and so many people in America aren't training and aren't skilling for those jobs.

In the downturn of our economy, a lot of people lost faith. What should they invest their time and money in? There was so much transition in the economy that people weren't sure where they should skill themselves. As we see a transitioning economy now in various sectors, as they continue to modernize, and as technology continues to change, people also say to themselves: What should I skill myself in? What should I get trained in? Because they are not sure that, at the end of that period, they will be right there with what the job market wants. That is why apprenticeship is so important today.

By giving a Federal incentive for the apprentice program, we are saying: Hire and train. We are actually saying: The apprentice program is earning while you learn, and it will help so many Americans take that issue off the table where they weren't sure whether or how they should skill themselves. They actually are hired and trained on the job.

This is something we have known as a country for a long time. We know the apprentice program has worked. We have seen it across many sectors, in building trades and construction. We have seen it in other areas. In aviation, for example, in the Pacific Northwest, the Boeing Company has taken great advantage of the apprentice program. There are so many other sectors. The maritime sector has taken advantage of the apprentice programs. What we are saying today is that we need to make this a national priority in a more aggressive way. The Department of Labor and registered apprentice programs are part of what we make an investment in here in the Federal budget. But what we are not doing is putting it on steroids, and that is what we need to do now.

Our legislation would create enough incentives for 500,000 new apprentice program individuals over the next 10 years. We think this is critically important because we know how much the U.S. economy needs these skilled workers. According to the National Skills Coalition, 53 percent of U.S. jobs are middle-skilled, meaning that they require some postsecondary education. Yet only 43 percent of U.S. workers are trained at that level. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 67 percent of their members report a shortage of available, qualified workers. We are going to need 3.5 million manufacturing jobs over the next decade, and this leaves us with a shortage of about 2 million.

So we need to give our businesses the skill levels they are looking for so they can be competitive, so they can meet their market needs, and so they can make profits and help grow our economy. We can't let them be deterred by the fact that they have the opening and they have the jobs, but they just don't have the skill level. By doing an incentive program, we can help get a national message out: The apprentice program is a key part of our economic strategy, and skilling a workforce for the jobs of today and tomorrow is the best recipe for growing our economy.

There has been an overall decline in employer-provided training over the last two decades. By making this investment now, we are going to help U.S. businesses with the investment that should be made and, further, as I said, expedite getting people into the programs we need to get them into. If we are going to be competitive and our businesses are going to compete in this global economy and they are going to continue to innovate, they need the workforce to do it.

I think about the chip fabrication industry. Before Intel came along, probably no one knew how to do chip fabrication. But there was a sector of our economy that taught and educated people on chip manufacturing. That will not be the last innovation our economy sees. In aerospace, we have been able to, with composite manufacturing, make lighter weight planes. That composite was a huge shift from the aluminum that dominated aerospace. But composite manufacturing is a whole new skill level in which we are still training and educating the workforce. We need to compete in that sector, which is so important to manufacturing jobs.

I would say that every aspect of our economy needs apprentices. But what does the apprentice get out of it? Not only do they get a job and they get to be skilled on the job, but they also earn more. Over the course of their career, a registered apprentice earns about $300,000 more than a non-apprentice working in the same field. A study done by our State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board found that completing apprentices earned $13,000 more per year just as they started.

So apprentices are a win-win for us and our economy. They give the employer the skills they are seeking to make their companies successful, and the individual worker gets trained and hired in a field that takes away this uncertainty about our economy, which has so plagued us over the last decade or two, and the community gets a more successful employment base and successful companies that add to the economy of a region and to our country.

I am so glad to be here with my colleague Senator Collins, who has

known that this apprentice program has been a success, and that is why she and I have partnered for years on this program. We hope now that by reintroducing it and getting more of our colleagues to join in, they, too, will talk about why apprentices are so important today.

We hope there is a guy down the street in the White House, who had a program called ``Apprentice,'' who takes seriously the bipartisan effort of two Senators who have been at this for a few years, and says: This is where we should be spending our money and making an investment to skill, educate, and employ Americans right now, for today.

I yield to my colleague from Maine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the President's proposed budget as it relates to Medicaid and the fact that it is just a war on Medicaid; that is, it continues the wrongheaded ideas that have been proposed in the House bill on healthcare reform and takes that and continues to make cuts to Medicaid that are unsustainable for our healthcare system.

The President's budget would impose a block grant or per capita cap on States in 2020 in exchange for so-called flexibility. I haven't met one State administrator of healthcare in our State who says they need more flexibility. They have a lot of flexibility on Medicaid currently, but they know this is just a budget cap and a budget cut.

The budget would result in $610 billion in cuts to States, in addition to what would happen if they were successful in passing the House bill in the Senate. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, the Trump budget cuts Medicaid ``considerably more deeply than the House bill's per capita cap proposal would do.''

No doubt what the budget is proposing from the President today and what our House colleagues have proposed on healthcare means more damage for healthcare and more damage for Medicaid.

Let's be more specific. Medicaid for healthcare is about children. It is about seniors. It is about the disabled. It is about working families. It is about young people. Medicaid covers half of the births and the majority of long-term care stays.

What people may not realize is that the President's budget cut to Medicaid also cuts children's healthcare, as a new study reveals, by at least $43 billion, according to Avalere Health. That is taking healthcare away from children, poor children, who need access to healthcare. Additionally, the budget impacts 1.75 million veterans who also get healthcare through Medicaid.

How can we possibly be standing here with a budget proposal by the President of the United States--after he promised not to cut Medicaid-- that not only proposes to cut Medicaid but cuts childrens' and veterans' healthcare when they need it most?

Medicaid is a lifeline for people who can't get covered or can't get a fair deal. It is a highly cost-effective, dynamic, and innovative program that has worked well, and Medicaid is a winning economic strategy for how to help families get out of poverty. It is one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in the United States and the second largest program to combat extreme poverty.

Its expansion in Washington has helped create jobs indirectly and directly and has saved our State about $353 million in our State budget. It injects billions into the economy and supports our high- wage, high-skill jobs throughout the healthcare economy.

As we know, our colleagues, in the House draconian healthcare act, would for the first time cut Medicaid's successful program by introducing a cap that would result in reductions every year to the Medicaid Program. Regardless of who needs access, regardless of those children, regardless of those veterans, it would continue to push down Medicaid funds by more each year.

I have said to my colleagues in the House that there are far more innovative ways to help our healthcare delivery system that are cost- effective, but simply cutting veterans or families or children off of Medicaid is not the way to do it.

The President's budget released today would reinforce this permanent cap. Currently, Medicaid is a needs-based partnership between the States and the Federal Government. During economic recessions, natural disasters, or public health emergencies, States know they can count on the Federal Government.

Under what has been proposed in the House, the per capita cap would give States only a fixed amount and start reducing the amount of money each year. It would leave a tsunami of seniors and others without new technologies, prescription drugs, or tools to address new healthcare threats.

There is nothing about it that is reform. It is not innovation. It is simply a budget mechanism to cut Medicaid. I don't know how the President, given that he promised before not to cut Medicaid could do this. He said: ``I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.''

If that is what the President tweeted, if that is what he said he was going to do, why is he now proposing a budget that actually cuts Medicaid?

We do not want to throw 600,000 Medicaid beneficiaries off of coverage in my State--and 14 million across the country--and take $1.4 billion out of Washington State's economy every year. These are numbers according to the Congressional Budget Office's most recent estimates and estimates by the State of Washington.

I think it is time to say no to the President's budget proposal. It is time to remind the President of his promise not to cut Medicaid, and it is time to stop talking about the silly idea of capping Medicaid and reducing funding to the States.

I mentioned the impact on children and veterans. I also want to mention the impact on those suffering from the opioid epidemic and what we have been trying to do to treat those individuals. Also, those facilities would be in great danger in continuing to treat that population if they don't have Medicaid.

So the notion that this is a smart healthcare strategy or a smart healthcare budget--it is not. It is a draconian measure that is going to leave many more Americans without healthcare. As I said, Medicaid is a successful program. The promise should be kept, and we should continue to improve the delivery system as a way to make it more cost- effective. I know we can't afford to leave sick children without access to healthcare, and now is not the time to leave veterans without the healthcare they deserve.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to speak against the Congressional Review Act resolution to overrun an important rule that has been put in place to protect the American taxpayer and to protect the health of American citizens.

For almost 100 years, the Federal Government has regulated undue waste in oil and gas fields. The story of oil and gas waste is as old as the story of oil and gas.

Early oil gushers, like Spindletop in Texas, revealed two things about oil as an emerging source of energy: First, there was a huge amount of it. Second, without rules in place, it could be easily wasted. That is why, way back in 1915, Attorney General Thomas Gregory issued a report to the public about this issue. Gregory wrote that the law at the time allowed oil companies to ``occupy and operate any number of tracts of public oil land without restraint upon the quantities of oil produced or the methods of production and

without rendering to the . . . government anything in return.'' One can imagine that concern. Gregory went on to point out that ``the incentives to speculative occupation, negligent and wasteful operation, and excess production become obvious.''

Some of my colleagues who are not on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee may not be familiar with the law Congress passed after Attorney General Gregory put his finger on the waste problem. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 established our modern leasing program for oil and natural gas. More than anything else, the leasing act enshrined the principle that the public should benefit from mineral production on public lands. This seems like a no-brainer today, but it took over a decade of debate to pass the leasing act.

One of the main parts of the leasing act was a requirement to avoid wasting oil and gas. There are many environmental reasons to avoid wasting this resource, but let's be clear: It was dollar signs that led to the waste provision. Overproduction would glut the market and damage the oil reserves, and wasted oil provided no return to the owners--the taxpayers.

The leasing act is still the law, and the law says that oil and gas operators must ``use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil or gas developed in the land.'' The law says that Federal leases must include ``a provision that such rules . . . for the prevention of undue waste as may be prescribed by [the] Secretary shall be observed.'' The BLM's methane rule is entirely in keeping with that history. The rule says that the outdated 1979 version of this rule needed to be updated.

The rule was put in place before the fracking took place that revolutionized the industry, before the shale plays opened, and before infrared imaging became commonplace. What has not changed since 1920 is that oil and gas companies cannot waste public resources on public lands.

When equipment is leaky or old, oil and gas producers vent natural gas directly to the sky. If they do capture the gas but have nowhere to send it, the gas just gets burned on site. This venting and flaring causes a big problem. This photograph shows that actual problem happening.

I am sure there are many citizens across the United States who have witnessed this and have been concerned about what pollutants might be entering the atmosphere. The hazardous health impacts of this are tremendous--benzene, which causes cancer--and I will talk more about that in a minute.

The amount of venting that is happening is enough gas to supply 6.2 million American households for a year. According to more recent research, even higher estimates are coming in. That is enough gas to supply every home in the interior West--Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico--with gas left over for the Dakotas. Every home. The amount of gas we waste every single year on Federal lands would be enough to supply Tennessee forever, and there could be some left over for West Virginia.

On Federal lands, operators have more than doubled how much gas they have flared and wasted between 2009 and today, and that is the practice we are trying to stop. Under the old 1979 rule, operators had to apply to BLM every time they wanted to vent or flare. In practice, BLM, because they did not have a new rule in place, basically just had a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer. In 2014, the Bureau of Land Management received 25 times more applications to vent or flare than in 2005.

What was happening was that we as a Federal Government were failing in our responding and updating the act to make sure producers were living up to the intent of that earlier law, so government watchdogs got on the issue and started calling for a solution.

The Government Accountability Office and the Interior Department's inspector general concluded that the Bureau of Land Management needed to change these rules. The Government Accountability Office concluded in 2010 that about 40 percent of wasted natural gas on Federal leases could be economically captured with existing technology.

Some States had already taken action into their own hands. In Colorado, the State passed a strong venting and leak detection regulation, which really became the model for the national Bureau of Land Management, and oil and gas production has since increased.

There was a notion that in making sure that waste was not promulgated--that it somehow was going to slow down the industry, but it has been just the opposite. In fact, some of my colleagues and some ranchers and others in these areas have talked about how the United States should lead the way on new technology to stop the leakage and to prevent these flarings as a way for the industry to show technology leadership.

Also, in North Dakota, a Republican administration passed flaring restrictions after years of there being uncontrolled flaring in the Bakken. States took action, and various watchdog groups and investigators here in Washington said the Bureau of Land Management needed to act. The BLM finally acted, and its final rule is similar to the North Dakota approach. So States have already been leaders on this methane issue. But this patchwork of State rules is not what we need; we need a Federal baseline.

It is bad enough that wasted natural gas will never have an economic use. Making the issue worse is that every cubic foot that is vented or flared is another cubic foot we have to produce somewhere else. What does that mean for our wallets? Research by ICF International shows that $330 million of natural gas is wasted intentionally on Federal lands every year. Over time, the public is losing billions of dollars. Over a decade, the lost royalties that have been calculated by the Government Accountability Office on wasted gas will add up to $230 million. While the final amount, of course, depends on the price of natural gas, we cannot afford to give up this revenue.

A vote for disapproving the resolution will let the oil and gas industry roll back the clock to 1979. This resolution lets people continue avoiding giving the taxpayers their fair share. It is another example of special interests trumping the public interest.

Even worse than the taxpayer issue, though, is that wasted natural gas harms public health. That is why those States took action. One of the most prevailing problems on this issue is in the Four Corners States, and my colleague from New Mexico will be talking about this shortly.

When one looks at the entire United States on a map that shows the amount of waste of flaring, one can see all of this yellow coloring in the Midwest--in Ohio--and in other States, but one can see the hotspot in the Four Corners area. The Four Corners States have tried to take action--places like Colorado and New Mexico, with, obviously, Arizona and Utah being affected--because wasted natural gas basically releases a volatile organic compound. It creates ozone and smog. It also can make people sick. This pollution worsens asthma, emphysema, and increases the risk of premature death. It releases toxins, like benzene, that cause cancer. And the methane, the main constituent of the natural gas, is 25 times more powerful at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

That is why a recent analysis by the Clean Air Task Force found that over 9 million people are exposed to these dangerous levels of air pollution from oil and gas production. That is why my colleague Senator Bennet of Colorado has been such an outspoken advocate of keeping this rule in place. It is because that corner of Colorado has faced so many impacts that they want to make sure their citizens are protected.

With the rolling back of this Federal rule, basically what one would be saying is that it is OK to continue this level of pollution--an anathema to what the people of Colorado have been asking for.

Oil and gas pollution can make rural areas seem like the middle of a city. A few years ago, NASA scientists discovered a massive cloud of methane over the Four Corners region. This is the highest concentration of methane in the Nation. After aerial surveys, NASA found that over half of the methane is from natural gas equipment, including tanks, wells, pipelines, and processing plants. The ozone pollution in the Four Corners is almost as bad on some days as in the city of Los Angeles--a city with 300 times as many people.

As bad as methane waste is on Federal land, this rule only targets 10 percent of that wasted by the oil and gas industry because we are targeting Federal land. It only affects a small minority of the oil and gas production. Ninety-five percent of that production is in other areas. But this rule is important to put in place because we cannot ignore the impacts on pollution, and we cannot ignore the costs to our Federal lands.

The Bureau of Land Management compared the costs and benefits of this rule without factoring in the reductions in ozone, particulate matter, or smog, and the BLM ignored the value of reducing carcinogens. We know that this particular conservative analysis shows a net benefit of between $46 million and $204 million each year. This makes economic sense to implement.

Under the very obsolete 1979 regulation that the methane rule replaces, oil and gas operators had to apply to the BLM whenever they wanted to vent or flare natural gas. The old rules also had no specific equipment requirements in place.

As I said earlier, the world has changed dramatically since 1979 when it comes to oil and gas production. The new rule takes commonsense approaches to stepping up our attempts to reduce this waste and prohibit the venting, except in emergencies and in some circumstances. They estimate that it will cut the venting by 35 percent. It also sets capture targets for flaring, allowing operators flexibility on how to meet those targets. The BLM estimates they will reduce flaring by 49 percent.

The rule requires operators to inspect their wells and their equipment. People may have heard unbelievable stories from California about a huge methane leakage that caused unbelievable amounts of damage. We know that we want the best equipment, that we want the best detection, and that we want a strong rule in place to stop wasting this natural gas, give the taxpayers a fair deal, and protect the American people from harmful levels of pollution. That is why we want this rule to stay in place.

With America's increased natural gas production, now is not the time to take a very solid rule off the books--a rule that protects the American people. The technology to conduct these inspections already exists. Infrared imaging and other technology has been sold commercially for decades. What we are really saying is that people just do not want to spend the money to implement them.

Fourth, the rule requires operators to replace leaky equipment, like the pneumatic controllers and pumps, and it is trying to make sure that we eliminate the methane waste.

So the final rule is in step with what the Government Accountability Office told us 7 years ago--that about 40 percent of the waste can be captured economically. BLM took those best practices and State examples, as I mentioned, including North Dakota and Colorado, and implemented a new rule.

It includes Colorado's venting and inspection and retrofitting requirements, and regulation 7. It includes North Dakota's capture targets for flared gas in it, and it includes Wyoming's venting and inspection requirements in the Upper Green River Basin.

Not only did the Bureau of Land Management adopt the best practices of States, but it also included a variance provision in the final rule. Any State or Tribe with equally effective regulation in place can minimize their methane waste and can apply for a variance from the Department of the Interior. There is a lot of flexibility there, I would say, for States that are trying to lead the way. But based on this careful approach, the final rule and its benefits are estimated, as I said earlier, to be $204 million a year.

So the public in these States that are most affected certainly want this rule. As more Americans understand the level of natural gas production and the wasteful venting that continues to take place, they want this rule in place as well.

Passing the resolution just after a few hours of debate and trying to undermine this rule would go against the 330,000 public comments that were collected during the process of establishing this rule. So we certainly don't want to overturn what was a very long and elaborate process to put this very important rule in place.

Proposing more waste is not going to solve our economic challenges. Proposing more pollution is not a solution. We know that in the most recent annual poll by Colorado College, western voters said that 81 percent of them supported making sure that the Bureau of Land Management had strong methane rules. My colleagues appear not to understand how much the public wants to get this implemented. I hope my colleagues will continue to support the effort to turn down the Congressional Review Act resolution and instead keep this very, very important public health and economic taxpayer solution on the books.

As Mark Boling, an executive with Southwestern Energy, a major natural gas producer, said, this resolution and trying to turn back the rule is ``a huge mistake.'' He pointed out that it could have ``unintended consequences for oil and gas technology.''

So I want to make sure this rule stays in place. Let's keep a strong rule on the books, as I said, for the health of the American people and to make sure that taxpayers get a fair deal with these companies that are producing on Federal lands.

I thank the Chair.

I yield to my colleague from New Mexico, who has been outspoken on this issue in making sure that Congress addresses the flaring and leakage of natural gas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come this morning to talk about the impending passage of a very failed healthcare bill in the House of Representatives and to remind my colleagues that this legislation moving through the House of Representatives is the first time in the 50-plus years of the Medicaid Program that they are going to pass legislation to cap and cost-shift Medicaid costs to States.

This is an $839 billion cost shift from the Federal government to States and a one-quarter cut to the Federal Medicaid investment over a period of ten

years. Some 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage. These draconian and arbitrary budget caps will leave States with impossible choices to cut people from care, cut provider reimbursements, or reduce benefits. Overall, 24 million Americans will lose their health insurance. That is according to a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis.

Why do I say this is a broken promise? Because it was very clear that, when President Trump was a candidate, he said he was not going to cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Why is that important? Because these are trusted programs that have worked cost effectively for so many Americans in giving them access to care. Now is not the time, as we have seen a Medicaid expansion, to now cost-shift Medicaid to the States by breaking this promise and putting in it, for the first time in 50 years, a substantial change to the way Medicaid works. It does represent, in my opinion, a war on Medicaid-- one that we cannot afford to wage.

Communities that have benefited from Medicaid expansion have seen the value of coverage and a healthy population. All you have to do is to talk to healthcare providers, hospitals, chambers of commerce, and others to get them to say that, yes, having more people with healthcare coverage in our community has helped us in raising the standard of living.

Why is that? First of all, uncompensated care is no longer put at the hospital's doorstep. Secondly, the population with healthcare coverage is healthier, getting treatment in advance as opposed to waiting for a crisis. It represents an investment in the community that allows a community to stabilize.

These are important issues for us to discuss. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will not fall for this ploy or that they will not go back on promises made by this administration not to cut Medicaid.

There are other aspects of the bill coming over from the House of Representatives, obviously, dealing with preexisting conditions, and we know from our own experience in the State of Washington that high-risk pools have covered only a tiny portion of people with preexisting conditions and are inadequate unless properly funded. As an article from the Seattle Times, from 2009, entitled ``Dozens of patients cut from state's high-risk insurance pool'' stated: ``with premiums that can top $20,000 a year, patients don't exactly clamor to join the state's high-risk health-insurance pool--a public insurer of last resort for patients with cancer, AIDS and other serious diseases . . . ,'' and ``the premiums cover only about 30 percent of the patients' medical and prescription expenses.''

There are many things that are working in the Affordable Care Act. We have done great things on rebalancing; that is, to rebalance people from nursing home care to community-based care.

This chart shows how many States in the United States of America are doing this. This is in the Affordable Care Act. We wrote a provision encouraging States to try to rebalance their population, not encouraging so much nursing home care because it is so expensive, and instead, trying to deliver the long-term care people need in their individual communities.

The great success of this is that many States in the Affordable Care Act took us up on it--States like Nevada, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Maine. I saw in our own State, over a 15-year period of time, that we saved roughly $2.7 billion. That is $2.7 billion of cost. Instead of paying for a Medicaid population in expensive nursing home settings, we instead innovated and put them into what was a cost-effective delivery system in which people love to stay in their home as they age as opposed to the notion of expensive nursing home care.

I mention that because that $2.7 billion could be the kind of savings we would see in these States. So I tell my colleagues from the House: Innovate; don't capitate. Don't try to say that you have an ingenious idea on how to take care of healthcare costs by simply capitating, for the first time in 50-plus years, the Medicaid Program and then leaving the States to pick up the bill.

It won't work. Follow the ideas and strategies that are much better in helping us cut costs for an aging population that is living longer, and look for fixes that are already there in the Affordable Care Act to do so.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I note, too, that we are going to be moving today, before we leave here, to what is the Omnibus resolution to keep the government open.

I wanted to mention an important aspect of the legislation we are going to be voting on. Pursuant to provisions in the Customs bill, we are now going to put funding into trade enforcement--a very important aspect of our trade agenda.

We know that more than 96 percent of the world's customers live outside the United States. By some estimates, at least 70 percent of the world's purchasing power is outside the United States. That means that we need to keep working hard to reach these new markets and these customers. The growing middle class has great purchasing power.

In 2015, the global middle class spent $33 trillion. By some estimates, the middle class could surpass 4 billion people by the year 2021, making it a majority of the world's population.

Approximately one in three jobs in the State of Washington are tied to international trade. Washington State exported approximately $80 billion in goods in 2016--from airplanes and coffee to apples and software. I know this about our State: we understand that we are in a global economy and that we have great products to sell in international markets.

Agriculture exports are very important to our State. Agriculture adds about $51 billion a year to our State's GDP, and the agricultural sector makes up more than 13 percent of our State's economy. In 2016, Washington exported $15 billion worth of food and agriculture products with $7 billion being of Washington origin. We are No. 1 in the nation in production of apples, hops, spearmint oil, wrinkled seed peas, concord grapes, sweet cherries, pears, green peas, raspberries for processing, blueberries and aquaculture. We are No. 2 in production of potatoes, certain kinds of grapes, nectarines, apricots, prunes, plums, sweet corn for processing, and a variety of other things.

This is to say that in the State of Washington, we grow a lot for overseas markets. Why am I talking about this important aspect of this bill that is passing to keep our government open today? Because in our State and across our country, we need to encourage more small businesses to export. And we need to make sure we have enforcement of a level playing field so that U.S. companies of all sizes and U.S. workers are protected as they compete in that global economy.

That is why, in the previously passed Customs bill, I created a Trade Enforcement Trust Fund at the Office of U.S. Trade Representative. Now, with this legislation passing today, we are putting $15 million toward that trust fund to be spent exclusively on enforcing trade agreements. We need to enforce the agreements and make sure Washington and businesses around the country get a fair deal as we work on trade. And $15 million in the fund would help us fight trade issues we have seen all over the globe.

For example, sometimes people try to sell their products by taking the great labels we have on Washington apples and putting them on foreign apples making them seem like Washington apples, when in reality they are not. This bill gives us money for trade enforcement to address these challenges.

Sometimes we have intellectual property that is hijacked or stolen from companies in our State. This bill puts more enforcement in place to fight those crimes and to make sure we are enforcing our trade agreements. The trust fund gives the framework and workforce to enforce trade laws governing exports to that burgeoning,

as I said, growing middle class outside the United States. We must make sure our products are sold and sold correctly and any disputes that are happening are resolved and resolved quickly so our trade with those countries can be cost-effective to our growers, to our manufacturers, and to the workforce within our State.

I am sure every Member here who has companies that have done trade in this global economy can tell you stories of how the lack of trade enforcement has cost them business. This fund is a very positive shot in the arm to our U.S. trade office, so they have the resources to do more enforcement and make sure our products are winning in the overseas markets.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, President Trump, in his attempt to deflect focus from the 100-day performance in his administration is, today, throwing a Hail Mary pass to try to allow offshore oil and natural gas drilling to take place in very protected areas of our Outer Continental Shelf.

The President's approach is unlawful and should be withdrawn before taxpayers pay any amount of money to go forward with it. He is attempting to open up coastal areas to oil and gas production, and he is touting job creation as a factor in his decision. I believe that the economic numbers revealed today show that we need to be doing more, but I doubt that this approach will be a successful approach for more American jobs.

The truth is that instead of creating new jobs, President Trump is poised to favor sectors that will compete with the already growing and thriving industries of fishing, tourism, and recreation, and in some potential areas will also threaten defense issues where we could have a potential conflict.

The bottom line is that the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill was a catastrophic human, economic and ecological disaster. Eleven members of the crew were killed in the explosion, and 17 others were injured. Oil spewed in the ocean for nearly 3 months, resulting in the largest oil spill disaster in the history of the United States.

In the end, the BP Horizon disaster resulted in 134 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico; that is 12 times more than the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in 1989 in Alaska.

I should say that many attempts have been made by Democrats in Congress to make sure we continue to update our laws. But Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation that would hold polluters liable for oil spills and improve offshore safety and environmental responses.

So today it is very frustrating that the President of the United States is proposing to roll back the important safety regulations that were put in place during the Obama administration. In fact, this book right here shows the Deepwater Horizon impact that was discussed by Members of Congress, the problems we had at the Department of Interior, and asked that these new regulations be put in place.

These regulations by the Obama administration helped put a new regime into place after Deepwater Horizon. But now President Trump is bringing those regulations into question, suggesting that we should roll them back. He is even questioning the new regulations on blowout preventer systems and well control, which, if my colleagues will remember, was the centerpiece of the problem with Deepwater Horizon.

The blowout preventers used had not been tested; the information was not overseen and regulated properly. So after all of that damage was outlined in this report and we made sure to implement changes, now President Trump, in his first 100 days as the President of the United States, instead of coming up with a better economic strategy is simply saying: Roll back regulations on polluters as a strategy for moving forward.

President Obama had also put large portions of the Arctic and dozens of underwater canyons off the east coast permanently off limits to drilling during his time in office, using his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. In the finalized Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2017-2022, the Obama administration removed the west coast, east coast, and Arctic waters from oil and gas exploration.

Why did he do that? He did that primarily because of the maritime economy. In Washington State alone, the maritime economy supports 148,000 jobs and $30 billion in economic activity. Many of these parts of the United States could not afford to be devastated again by oil spills or exploration into ecologically sensitive areas like the Arctic.

I believe the Atlantic region was rightly removed due to strong local opposition, conflicts with other ocean uses, and market dynamics. The Department of the Interior recognized the potential environmental and economic impacts and competing ocean uses. For example, the economic value of commercial fishing in just the Mid-Atlantic region is worth more than $1.5 billion, and ocean-dependent tourism is more than $10 billion in the Atlantic region.

So I would say that the fishing economy, the tourism economy, and DOD's need for sea lanes in the Atlantic are all important, and we should not be trying to roll back Obama administration regulations in these areas. It is not surprising that there was significant opposition to the oil and gas leasing from citizens, local officials, and people who reside in these communities.

I can tell you, if this rule includes the west coast, there will be strong opposition from the State of Washington, the State of California, and the State of Oregon, where we are so dependent on healthy oceans and sustainable fisheries. We hope to clarify whether or not the west coast will be included in President Trump's executive order, but if it is, the west coast will speak loudly. From our shellfish growers to our vibrant commercial and recreational fisheries, and generations of families who have to have sustainably harvested Dungeness crab, salmon, and halibut.

We do not want to put them at risk with offshore drilling. Not only would a spill impact our fisheries and habitat, but it could impact our Olympic National Marine Sanctuary. It would also have an impact on one of the busiest shipping lanes in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, in and out of Washington's busy, busy ports.

Washington's coast is a trade superhighway. Our shipping and trade economy is growing faster than ever. In the first quarter of this year, the total domestic and international container volume increased by 10 percent. In our State, this maritime economy is worth $30 billion in economic activity. It supports over 148,000 jobs, in fishing, in seafood processing, in shipbuilding, and other maritime sectors.

Because of this importance, we believe in protecting the west coast. President George H.W. Bush signed the first Executive order banning offshore drilling in the Pacific in 1990. We would recommend that this President follow suit.

It is so unfortunate that this new effort to repeal protections is going forward, but I believe it is going to fail. Many know that this action is just an attempt to reverse the past President's withdrawal of sensitive areas, like in the Arctic and the Atlantic, and is not authorized. It is not authorized under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and, therefore, the President should not spend money. He should go back to the people who know the law and understand that this is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

I hope the President will dialogue with Congress about any of our ideas to stimulate our economy. I am happy to talk at any point in time about ideas that we have that will move our country forward, produce jobs, and help stimulate economic growth.

But expanding offshore drilling and exploration to areas that already have been limited and set aside by past Presidents is not the way to proceed. We need to make sure that an industry that has made mistakes is held accountable and recommendations that were in this report not be reversed back to the days before Deepwater Horizon. This is what we need to do to protect our vital maritime economy and make sure there are laws on the books that the oil and gas industry need to comply with.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, yesterday President Trump issued an Executive order that undermined the protection of dozens of our national monuments that were established over the past two decades by three different Presidents. In continuing his administration's war on our public lands, President Trump and Secretary of the Interior Zinke have attacked one of our Nation's most prized conservation laws--the Antiquities Act, which gives the President the authority to protect our nationally important lands and waters on Federal land by designating them as national monuments.

In the 111 years since the Antiquities Act was signed into law by President Teddy Roosevelt, 16 Presidents--8 Republicans and 8 Democrats--have used the law's authority to designate over 150 national monuments. President Trump is trying to undo over 100 years of conservation in just a few days.

Many of our Nation's iconic national parks were first protected by using the authority of the Antiquities Act, including the Grand Canyon, Acadia, Glacier Bay, Joshua Tree, Zion, and in my home State of Washington, Mount Olympus National Monument, which later became Olympic National Park.

No doubt Presidents of both parties have used the Antiquities Act to preserve the most beautiful places in our country. However, President Trump appears to be very uninformed on the history or the importance of the Antiquities Act. In his remarks signing the Executive order yesterday, he described the designation of national monuments as an ``egregious use of federal power'' and vowed he would ``give that power back to the States.'' He truly does not understand the Antiquities Act, nor does he appreciate the bold leadership of all of those Presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, over a period of time--eight Republicans and eight Democrats--who have used this authority in an appropriate way to preserve for all Americans in the future and those in the past who have enjoyed these beautiful places--and to preserve our access to public lands.

I can't tell you how important access to public lands is for schoolchildren, our returning veterans, our families, hunters, fishermen, and hikers. Putting the Antiquities Act and the millions of acres of national monuments that have been protected back into the hands of a few who are more aligned with special interests to try to open these areas up to oil and gas exploration is the antithesis of what the Antiquities Act is all about.

We plan to continue to emphasize how wrong the President's Executive order is.

First and foremost, in the Executive order, the President directed the Secretary of the Interior to review the designation or expansion of national monuments under the Antiquities Act where the Secretary deems that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public comment or coordination with relevant stakeholders. That literally gives the Secretary of the Interior broad authority to look at all the land that has previously been designated since 1996 and potentially open it up to saying they are going to try to reverse that.

There have been many discussions about the last 20 years of the designation of some unbelievable, beautiful places in America that are so special--the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, which is 1.7 million acres; the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in Arizona; the Giant Sequoia National Monument in California; the Canyon of Ancients National Monument in Colorado--I know my colleague Senator Bennet from Colorado was speaking about it earlier; Hanford Reach National Monument in Washington, which covers 195,000 acres; the Ironwood Forest National Monument in Arizona; the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument in Arizona; the Carrizo Plain National Monument in California; the Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona; the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana; the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico, on which my colleague Senator Heinrich worked so hard; the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, also in New Mexico; the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in California; the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument in California; the Basin and Range National Monument in Nevada; the Mojave Trails National Monument in California; the Sand to Snow National Monument in California; Bears Ears, as I have mentioned, in Utah; and the Gold Butte National Monument in Nevada. That sounds like a lot of designations that we have made over the last 20 years. Presidents were very judicious about those designations. It took a lot of public comment, many community meetings, and a lot of scientific analysis about the preservation of these areas. The end result is that for these generations and future generations, national monuments have been designated on public lands that are in our national interests.

This has been so important to us as a nation. As I said, places like the Grand Canyon, Olympic National Park in my State--many places have created what has become an outdoor recreation economy. That outdoor recreation economy is now over $800 billion of annual revenue and dwarfs what the oil and gas industry represents as an economy of the future. In fact, this industry sector is on par to compete with

other large sectors of our economy--the financial service sector and the healthcare sector. So why are we taking away the very tool that has launched so much outdoor activity and a burgeoning job economy, with 7 million outdoor industry workers? Why are we taking away national monument designations that have been the priority of past Presidents and trying to return them because someone doesn't understand what the Antiquities Act is all about?

In addition to those large monuments that I just mentioned, also under review will be a group of other monuments that are marine national monuments. Yes, according to the definition I mentioned earlier, Secretary Zinke could review all of these monuments. In fact, I noticed that there were several people at the President's signing who represented some of these monuments. I don't know if they are urging the President to remove their areas, but it raises great concern about how important these marine monuments have been.

There is the Papahanaumokuakea marine national monument in the Hawaiian islands that was established in 2006; the World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument, also in Hawaii; the Rose Atoll National Monument in American Samoa; the Pacific Remote Islands National Monument in Hawaii; the Marianas Trench National Monument in the Mariana Islands; and the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in the Atlantic.

In addition to all of those maritime national monuments of grand scale, these also under consideration are an additional two dozen or so--I think it looks like 25--smaller national monuments that could also be reviewed by the Secretary of the Interior. Even though they were designated with this Presidential authority, in previous administrations after great review, they could, by this President and this Interior Secretary, be wiped away very quickly.

We definitely do not believe the President has this legal authority, and we will pursue a vigorous fight. Why should we be wasting taxpayers' money when taxpayers' money was already spent to make these designations, and the taxpayer is getting the huge economic benefit of having these outdoor areas?

What else could be on the President's list according to this Executive order? The California Coastal National Monument; Cascade- Siskiyou National Monument; President Lincoln and Soldier's Home National Monument in Washington, DC; Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument in New Mexico; Minidoka National Historic Site in Idaho; Pompeys Pillar National Monument in Montana; Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument; Governors Island National Monument in New York; the African Burial Ground National Monument in New York; Fort Monroe National Monument in Virginia; Fort Ord National Monument in California; Chimney Rock National Monument in Colorado; the Cesar Chavez National Monument in California; San Juan Islands National Monument in the State of Washington; the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument; the First State National Historic Park in Delaware; the Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers Monument; the Honouliuli National Monument in Hawaii; the Pullman National Monument in Illinois; Browns Canyon National Monument in Colorado; Waco Mammoth National Monument in Texas; Castle Mountains National Monument in California; the Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument; Stonewall National Monument in New York; the Birmingham Civil Rights Monument in Alabama; the Freedom Riders National Monument in Alabama; and the Reconstruction Era National Monument in South Carolina.

The Executive order says the Secretary of the Interior can review any national monument designation since 1996 ``Where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders.''

The Executive order says that for any national monument on the list I just mentioned, the Secretary of the Interior could decide there was not appropriate public outreach. Even though the process used by Presidents under the Antiquities Act makes sure you have that, this Secretary could decide there wasn't enough and recommend to undo any of these monuments and eliminate access to the public for the purposes of recreation and enjoyment.

So this administration has it dead wrong. He is no Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, I saw he had a press conference with a statue of Teddy Roosevelt behind him. Teddy Roosevelt would be appalled because his concept of preserving Federal land was so important. Teddy Roosevelt was an outdoorsman who spent many a time in these great places of our Nation and understood their great significance. That is why we have the Antiquities Act. He knew that these resources strengthened our country. They made us strong as a nation. They show the crown jewels of the United States of America in all their glory and beauty. He knew it was important to protect them for future generations to enjoy, not just for the special interests to take advantage of in the near term.

We have a lot of Federal land and offshore land that is used for resource exploration and development. As people know, natural gas is at an all-time high in the United States and driving an all-time low price. It is not as if you need access to Bears Ears National Monument to drive down the price of natural gas or other fossil fuel. What you are going to do by pursuing this wrongheaded approach on Bears Ears is take away one of the historic and beautiful archaeological histories of Native Americans and early Americans in the United States--and an area that has excellent outdoor recreation opportunities--and throw it, along with the concept of the Antiquities Act, over the side just because someone wants to try to reverse what our previous Presidents, starting with Teddy Roosevelt, have done to protect these monuments in our national interest.

Representing a State where we have several counties that have lots of Federal land, whether forest lands or BLM lands, I know that it can be challenging for local communities to maintain the infrastructure, the education, the hospitals, the law enforcement. I am a big believer in making sure that what are called PILT payments and the Secure Rural School Program are well funded and financed to make sure that these communities can be there to help us support these public lands. But the notion that with one act we would throw in Teddy Roosevelt's face all of these national monuments and now say that we are going to try to use it in reverse to review the work in the near term, of 3 different Presidents who used this authority is simply wrongheaded.

What we need to do is embrace the outdoor economy. As I said, it is 7 million jobs with over $800 billion of economic activity. In fact, since the last time they did their report, there has been a $200 billion annual increase in the economic impact in the United States of America. What great news. An industry and sector, particularly in retail, is growing by leaps and bounds. It is an industry that is providing people with more tools and opportunity to enjoy our beautiful places. The only thing we can do to screw that up is start taking away the beautiful places where people go to recreate. I would say we should be examining how well these areas we have protected are being used and figure out how we can continue to communicate to the general public about these wonderful experiences.

Do not think for one minute that the American people in their souls are not connected to the spiritual nature of these beautiful lands. They are. And that is what Teddy Roosevelt knew. He knew this is where we go to rejuvenate. Let's not take it away for some oil and gas exploration.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, President Trump is expected to issue an Executive order directing the Department of the Interior to review all of the national monuments issued over the past 20 years, to see whether those monuments should be reduced in size or repealed. It is clear to me that many of us know the value of our public lands. But I am questioning whether our President understands that trying to illegally roll back those national monuments--some of the most treasured lands in our country--is something we should not do.

This shortsighted move is a pretext to attacking the designation of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, which is sacred to the five tribes that form the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, and is a breathtaking site for all Americans who come to experience what is the unbelievable, unique beauty of the West.

Whether they are there hiking or climbing or vacationing, it is a special place. But President Trump's Executive order is expected to go even further than just Bears Ears, reviewing any designation in the last 20 years, threatening the question of the San Juan Islands or Hanford Reach National Monuments and the creation of other sites around the United States and threatening our economy.

Time and again, the Trump administration is pushing for policies that are harmful to our recreation economy and a disaster for our pristine places, and it sets a terrible precedent for future conservation efforts.

The Antiquities Act is one of our Nation's most successful conservation laws. It was signed into law in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt to designate Devils Tower in Wyoming as our Nation's first national monument.

In the 110 years since its enactment, the Antiquities Act has been a very useful tool by 16 different Presidents--eight Republicans, eight Democrats--to designate more than 140 national monuments, including, as I mentioned, the San Juan Islands and Hanford Reach in the State of Washington.

Nearly half of all of our national parks, including national icons such as the Grand Canyon or Olympic National Park, were first designated as national monuments under the Antiquities Act. So it is a very helpful tool to making sure we preserve those special places. I will note, too, that only 4 percent of all land in the United States is set aside this way, designated as part of the national park system or as a national monument.

So, of all the lands in the United States, we are asking to protect 4 percent of the lands, that are these unique special places, to be persevered for the American public and not turned over to special interests for oil and gas mining.

I also think it is important to note that the Antiquities Act gives the President the authority to make sure that these monuments are designated because from time to time there are those who do not believe in these special places.

I note that when the Grand Canyon was being considered, an editorial in that time period editorialized: ``The idea of protecting the Grand Canyon represents a fiendish and diabolical scheme.'' Now, I don't think that is what Americans think today about the Grand Canyon, nor do they think that it is something that hasn't enriched the lives of millions of Americans over the years or added to our economy and tourism. So I find it ironic that the same people think that the designation of Bears Ears is somehow a ``fiendish and diabolical scheme.''

Well, what I know is that the President is wrong to think he can use the Antiquities Act in reverse. In 1938, an Attorney General's opinion was issued stating that the President did not have the authority to use it in reverse.

So I think any attempt by the Trump administration to modify or revoke earlier national monument proposals is without the legal authority to do so. But I also want to make sure that we are talking about how important and how special Bears Ears is. It is a monument of true significance. It encompasses 1.3 million acres of beautiful desert hills, mesas, and sandstone canyons in southeastern Utah and is home to some of the most spiritually significant lands of the local Tribes and some of the best rock climbing in the world.

Bears Ears encompasses Native American archaeological sites dating back at least 13,000 years. The area is covered in rock art, petroglyphs and pictographs, cliff dwellings, and artifacts. So if nothing else, those special places should be preserved.

It is also special to many of the early inhabitants of that area: the Ute Tribe, the Navajo Tribe, the Uintah Ouray Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, and the Zuni Tribe. Bears Ears is important to these Tribal members for sacred ceremonies, and hunting, and fishing.

Bears Ears also continues to be one of the richest paleontological resources in our Nation, with fossil records dating back millions of years. So it is easy to see why it is so important that this special place was designated.

In addition to its historical and cultural significance, Bears Ears is also a world-class recreation resource visited by rock climbers from all over the world. It is also visited by hunters, hikers, canyoneers, white water rafters, mountain bikers, and the entire conservation community. That is why the Outdoor Retailer show, which had previously located its biannual event in Utah, decided after two decades that they were pulling out. That is right. They are pulling out their $40 million contribution to the Utah economy because they are against the efforts by many in Utah to oppose the Bears Ears monument and try to get the President to reverse the Antiquities Act and then use that Federal land for oil and gas exploration. I was so proud to see the outdoor industry take such a bold step. Companies like REI, Patagonia, Black Diamond, and Outdoor Research really made a big and bold statement. They decided that if a State was going to attack the very economy that was so important to their jobs in recreation, they were going to do something about it.

I agree with the Salt Lake Tribune editorial on the Outdoor Retailer's decision, which said that the debate over public lands is about ``who we are and where we are headed. To get there, we need leaders with a better appreciation of the magnificent gifts God has given everyone, not just Utahans.''

So what is ironic and, frankly, a bit sad is that at the same time the Trump administration is waging war on our public lands and fighting imaginary ones, like the War on Coal, we have new data on just what an economic engine the recreation industry has become. Just today, the Outdoor Industry Association released a new report on the economic contributions of the recreation economy. Today, the recreation industry generates $887 billion in consumer spending every year. That is up more than $200 billion--from $646 billion--since the last time the study was done a few years ago. What does this tell us? Not only do more Americans enjoy recreation on our public lands, but an economy has been built around it, and it continues to grow and thrive, with new products, new services, and more comfortable and innovative ways to enjoy the outdoors. The outdoor recreation economy is responsible for 7.6 million jobs in this country. That is a growth of 1.5 million jobs since the last time the report was done.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration seems perfectly content to do the bidding of these natural resources industries instead of focusing on these jobs and these recreational opportunities that are booming. In fact, the clean energy economy is now supporting more jobs than fossil fuels in 26 States and the District of Columbia. So it is an economy that exists in many parts of our country.

On top of this effort to try and weaken these national monument designations and use the Antiquities Act in reverse, the President is also expected to gut some of our key investments in science and innovation that are also helping us grow in new ways.

I will tell you that pollution is not an economic strategy. We cannot turn the economy of the past into hope for the future. What we need to do is make sure we are paying attention to the unique resources that these special places represent and the great heritage of both Democratic and Republican administrations, which have done great work by protecting places like the Grand Canyon and Bears Ears.

I hope all of my colleagues will realize that this is a futile effort and that these special places do not belong only to us. They do not belong to the people who are here on the Senate floor. They belong to generations and generations of Americans.

To those great Presidents--Republican and Democratic--who made those decisions and created those special places for all of us, thank you. I hope that some future generation will be standing here thanking us for protecting Bears Ears and all of the national monument designations that have taken place over the last two decades.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Neil Gorsuch and to oppose cloture on this nomination.

I take seriously the responsibility to give advice and consent, and I take seriously the President's remarks that he planned on nominating someone to the Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

A U.S. Supreme Court nominee requires 60 votes, and if a nominee can't clear 60 votes, then I agree with my colleague, the Senator from New York, that it is the nominee who should be changed and not the Senate rules.

If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will have a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court and have an impact on many, many Americans' lives. When people say lifetime, I think that doesn't quite accurately reflect this issue and nomination. Lifetime, in this case, may mean 30 to 35 years.

It is hard for me in an information age to think of all the issues that are going to occur in the next 30 to 35 years and what issues this nominee might rule on. But I know this: Right now, privacy rights and how they affect the lives of many Americans are critical, not just to my constituents but to people all over the country.

Judge Gorsuch is commonly referred to as a proponent of originalism and textualism. He believes the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted by the original intentions of those who drafted it as closely as possible. As someone who knows well the record of the former Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Griswold v. Connecticut decision, I doubt that one would say that he was an originalist.

Some legal scholars have even called Judge Gorsuch a selective originalist, favoring some textual provisions while overlooking others. And while no one expects Judge Gorsuch to reveal how he would vote on a particular case. During his Senate confirmation hearing, he did not give Senators enough background about his judicial philosophy. In our private meeting, he did not give me enough of an assurance of his philosophy as it relates to these issues on privacy for my constituents in Washington.

Whether we are talking about access to healthcare or we are protecting individuals' privacy rights from unwanted corporation or government intervention, these issues are critically important. Judge Gorsuch told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he does recognize privacy rights. However, his earlier writings on unenumerated constitutional rights contradict this statement. This contradiction raised questions with me, and I worked to try to further clarify his judicial philosophy on this issue.

I told him that my State had actually codified the rights of women to have access to reproductive healthcare.

He said: Oh, you mean your State legislature did that.

And I said: No, Judge Gorsuch, I mean the people of Washington voted on these issues and voted to protect a woman's right to access to reproductive healthcare.

When it comes to the right to privacy, I work hard to understand where our judiciary is coming from, and if it is for the next 30 to 35 years, I guarantee you these privacy rights are going to be of critical importance.

In the longstanding precedent known as the Chevron doctrine, judges should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. It allows agencies to get expert input on their decisions and regulations. By overturning this doctrine, it could make it easier for courts to challenge important agency decisions protecting health and the environment. This issue is also important to my State. We fought the Enron case to make sure that the Federal energy regulators did their job in protecting the ratepayers of Washington from, at the time, what was, in my opinion, a violation of the Federal Power Act on just and reasonable rates. We had to go to a great extent to make sure that the agencies' decisions were carefully considered to make sure we didn't become the deep pockets.

Making sure that this doctrine is continued and not overturned is important. I find it troubling that Judge Gorsuch concluded that this precedent from Chevron v. the Natural Resources Defense Council should be overturned.

Also, yesterday was Equal Pay Day, and there was a lot of discussion about how women still face unequal wages. What would Judge Gorsuch do about equal pay?

As a professor, he told his students that women manipulate family leave policies for their own benefits. As a judge, he frequently ruled against women and their rights. In Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, a privately held company, which was a store chain, challenged the Affordable Care Act's birth control benefit. The Affordable Care Act required health insurance plans to provide women with birth control coverage with no cost sharing.

Judge Gorsuch joined the Tenth Circuit majority, holding that an employer's religious beliefs could override an employee's right to birth control coverage. Judge Gorsuch also supported an effort to defund Planned Parenthood, an important provider of women's health services. In Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, the Tenth Circuit upheld an injunction to prevent the Governor of Utah from defunding Planned Parenthood. However, Judge Gorsuch dissented and pushed for a rehearing of this case by the full court.

Judge Gorsuch has had a narrow interpretation of the laws meant to protect workers against discrimination. In another case, a worker alleged that she had been unlawfully discriminated against based on gender because she took 2 weeks of leave under the Family

Medical Leave Act. She claimed that her employer had a higher performance standard for women than for her male coworkers. The Tenth Circuit ruled in her favor and found that the employer had discriminated against her. However, Judge Gorsuch dissented, arguing evidence of discrimination was entirely absent.

These issues and rulings make me concerned about Judge Gorsuch's judicial philosophy as it relates to what I now believe is an accepted standard.

Judge Gorsuch has also ruled against LGBTQ individuals seeking fair and nondiscriminatory treatment. Lambda Legal and other groups have called his record openly hostile toward the LGBTQ community. Judge Gorsuch has held that a transwoman's constitutional rights were not violated, citing the absence of any medical evidence.

Also, as many of my colleagues have talked about, Judge Gorsuch has had a pattern of ruling against the little guy. My colleague from Hawaii noted that he seems to favor corporate interests over workers' rights and private interests over public interests.

Look at the outcome in many of these cases, which have been cited frequently since his nomination--none more than the case involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I think it is so important that it needs to continue to be talked about.

This case, which was recently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, limited the opportunities for children with disabilities. Judge Gorsuch had concluded that to comply with the law, the school's responsibility to the student was to make progress that was ``merely more than de minimis.'' That is to say that those children in our education system who have a special need, whether it be autism or something else, through our education system need to make progress, and it could be no more than de minimis.

This ruling impacts hundreds of thousands of students all across America, including in the State of Washington. He wrote the majority opinion and used the word ``merely.''

I asked Judge Gorsuch about this because of the cases I mentioned earlier on Federal energy regulators and the fact that we needed strong anti-manipulation laws, and we needed people to interpret the standards to make sure that they were upholding the interests of the public. We had quite a long discussion about this issue. Judge Gorsuch suggested that he was bound by a previous decision.

I know some of my colleagues have also noted this, but when Justice Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion rejecting these ``merely more than de minimis'' standards that Judge Gorsuch used, Justice Roberts said: ``When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing merely more than de minimis progress from year to year can hardly said to have been offered an education at all.'' On this point, I agree with the Chief Justice.

Not having a deeper understanding about his judicial philosophy and given my great concerns for the right to privacy issues that will remain constant in our society for the next 30 years and given these issues around regulatory standards that are so important, I cannot support this nomination nor support cloture to move ahead.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues here on the Senate floor, and I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership on this issue. I rise to join my colleagues in voicing strong opposition and deep concern on H.J. Res. 43, a resolution of disapproval we are considering today in the U.S. Senate.

This resolution will threaten access to healthcare for thousands of women and families in the State of Washington and millions of people across the Nation.

H.J. Res. 43 would make it easier for States to discriminate against healthcare providers who serve low-income and vulnerable patients under title X of the Public Health Services Act.

Title X is the only Federal funding program dedicated to supporting the family planning safety net, and it was widely supported by the public when it was enacted with strong bipartisan support. So despite what my colleagues say on the other side of the aisle, this issue is something where all my colleagues should make sure we are not taking away access to healthcare.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the House--and I know my colleague, the senior Senator from Washington, can testify to this, have on many occasions tried to de-fund Planned Parenthood. They have used Planned Parenthood as a bargaining chip in a litany of high-stakes legislative negotiations. They even tried to shut down the Federal Government because they didn't want to fund Planned Parenthood. Moreover, during the 114th Congress, Republicans voted 22 times to undermine women's health. Today, they are continuing the same thing.

These health centers are an essential part of communities' delivery systems. They provide preventive services. They help prevent deadly disease. They save taxpayers money. They help families with their healthcare. Time and again, constituents in our States tell us how access to these high quality care centers translates into economic empowerment, independence, and the ability to thrive in their lives and careers. In short, these health centers don't just

provide good healthcare for America. They provide a good economic strategy for America.

In our State, 34 Planned Parenthood centers provide contraceptive care, breast cancer screening, and STD and HIV screening and treatment, and they have prevented thousands of unintended pregnancies thanks to their efforts and outreach. In the very isolated communities of Pullman, Moses Lake, and Shelton, and many more, they are oftentimes the only family provider that will furnish care to low-income individuals. Major medical organizations--representing obstetricians, gynecologists, family physicians, and pediatricians--have also made it clear that this resolution is divorced from medical science and will hurt patients.

I urge my colleagues to resist continuing their senseless political crusade. I hope they will be smart enough to understand that a healthcare strategy is an economic strategy. I hope they will defeat this resolution.

Gonzaga Bulldogs

Mr. President, what a great moment--my colleague from Washington is here, and my colleague from Nevada is here as well. I just want to clarify something. We definitely want to cheer on the Gonzaga Bulldogs in Saturday's game. But so many people say: Where is Gonzaga? It is in Spokane, WA, and we are very proud of Spokane. It is a city that hosts Hoopfest, a three-on-three basketball game that many people attend, and an enormous Bloomsday race that so many people come to from across the country right on the first of May. I think somewhere around 60,000 people are in that race. But we are also so proud that we also have a Gonzaga School of Law graduate here on the Senate floor--the Senator from Nevada. Gonzaga also produces great academic minds.

So for everybody from Spokane, congratulations and good luck on Saturday's big game.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a dear friend, honorable servicemember, and dedicated public servant. On March 3, Gary Petersen retired from over a half-century career of private and public service supporting scientific achievement and advocacy for the people of my home State of Washington. Gary has worked tirelessly to support the Hanford cleanup and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, and has undoubtedly bolstered our Nation's security during the 52 years that he has lived and worked in the Tri- Cities.

Gary and I have collaborated closely many times over the years on many projects. Most recently, he played a key role in organizing the energy workforce roundtable held at PNNL with Department of Energy Secretary Moniz in August of last year. Gary has been a steadfast advocate for cleaning up the Hanford site, funding for the world-class research and development at PNNL, and for the continued growth of the Volpentest HAMMER Training Center at the Hanford site. I am confident that Washington State, and especially the Tri-Cities, would not be as well positioned to tackle our Nation's future energy challenges if not for over 50 years of Gary Petersen's tireless work.

Originally from Omak, a small city located in Okanogan County, Gary joined the Army and was stationed in the Tri-Cities in January 1960. After a duty station transfer to Korea, Gary returned and graduated with a communications degree from Washington State University. Shortly after graduation, Gary started with Battelle, a company that had a contract for a research and development lab located at Hanford. That lab provided crucial services during the Cold War and is now known as PNNL. Gary went on to work for Westinghouse on the Fast Flux Test Facility, the Washington Public Power Supply System, and spent time with the International Nuclear Safety Program, a cooperative nuclear energy safety effort between the U.S. and Soviet Union. After retiring from Battelle in 2002, Gary served on the Tri-City Development Council, TRIDEC, an organization dedicated to improving the economic health of the Tri-Cities area.

During his 14 years at TRIDEC, Gary has been a relentless supporter for DOE's missions at Hanford and PNNL and a champion for the larger Tri-City community and our State by ensuring important projects received needed Federal resources. Gary is the type of constituent every member hopes to have in their communities back home--a very involved citizen. He has been a strong advocate for the issues that matter to the people of Washington while also understanding the importance of communicating with his political representatives. My relationship with Gary has been invaluable, and he has been instrumental in many of my proudest career accomplishments.

Gary shares my vision for why establishing the Manhattan Project National Historical Park was so important. We worked together for many years to champion and ultimately see the creation of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. The legislation I authored preserved the central landmark of the Hanford site and the park, the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production nuclear reactor ever built and a tremendous technological achievement for its time. The park also includes the Bruggemann Agricultural Warehouse, the White Bluffs Bank, the historic Hanford High School, and the Hanford Irrigation District's Allard Pump House. Visitors from 70 countries have already visited the B Reactor, demonstrating the uniqueness of the park and the curiosity people have about this chapter of American and world history. We all owe Gary a debt of gratitude for the establishment of this park.

Today the Tri-Cities is home to a vibrant agricultural industry, some of the best healthcare available, two colleges that are training workers to meet the varied needs of the region's businesses, increasing wine tourism, and a newly expanded airport. Gary has touched all of these projects and many more.

I am incredibly proud to have worked with Gary and to call him a friend. Gary, thank you for all of your years of advocacy for the Tri- Cities. I join Washingtonians in thanking him for his longstanding service and wish him and his wife, Margaret, all the best in the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the resolution which uses the Congressional Review Act process to overturn a Fish and Wildlife Service resolution prohibiting certain inhumane methods of killing bears and wolves within the 16 national wildlife refuges in Alaska, which cover about 20 percent of the State of Alaska.

I understand the opponents of the Fish and Wildlife Service rule argue that States' rights issues are at hand, and they are responsible for the management of fish and wildlife in the State. That is certainly true within the State, but on Federal national wildlife refuge land, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in charge--just like at Mount Rainier or Olympic National Park, where the National Park Service is in charge. I am sure there are times when Pierce County or even Seattle would like to make rules related to Mount Rainier, but they are not allowed because it is part of our National Park System. Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife Service manages our national wildlife refuge system.

The rules in this proposal only apply to those national wildlife refuge lands in Alaska. They don't cover any other lands in the State. So this isn't about States' rights. It is about how we can manage these wildlife refuges to the degree that agencies believe are necessary for the preservation of the wildlife.

Managing these national wildlife refuges--the 16 Federal refuges in Alaska--is about ensuring the management policies are consistent with the purpose of the wildlife refuge. It is not about prohibiting hunting. In fact, hunting has been allowed, and will continue to be allowed within these refuges in Alaska, as is the case with most national wildlife refuges throughout the United States.

As the Senator from New Mexico pointed out earlier, this is about what people want to see when they go to a national wildlife refuge. Do they want to see the inhumane killing of bear cubs in their den or would they like to see the bears and the other fish and wildlife activity that exists in so many of these beautiful areas?

Another argument that has been raised is that this rule will stop Alaskans from hunting for subsistence purposes--Native Alaskans who depend on subsistence hunting. The rule says nothing about this. It does not affect subsistence hunting. This rule is only about prohibiting certain methods of predator control in our wildlife refuges. Some people think this is contrary to responsible wildlife management practices in other States. But this rule only applies to national wildlife refuges in the State of Alaska.

The actions that Alaska has authorized on their State lands are so aggressive, that permitting them on Federal wildlife refuge land would be counter to the purposes of these national wildlife refuges. I know one of my colleagues was here citing what they think is already prohibited under state law, but the Alaska Administrative Code does allow for carbon monoxide cartridges to be used in humane euthanizing in these wolf dens and the killing of young animals.

Mr. President, let me read from the relevant provision of the Alaska Code, which is 5 AAC 92.110, Control of Predation by wolves. Subsection (h) states that ``carbon monoxide cartridges may be used to humanely euthanize wolf young in the den in areas under a predation control implementation plan.''

The next subsection, subsection (i) states that ``the killing of wolf young in the den, commonly known as `denning,' is prohibited unless the commission authorizes the killing of wolf young in the den in areas under a predation control implementation plan.''

That is in the Alaska Administrative Code today, and it is something that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not want to see happen in national wildlife refuges. The killing methods authorized by the State of Alaska include killing bear cubs or mothers with cubs, killing brown bears, including grizzly bears, using bait, killing brown bears using traps or snares, killing wolves or coyotes and their pups during the denning season, and shooting bears or wolves from aircraft or helicopters, using the aircraft to track down the bears or wolves, then landing and shooting them.

When you see the list of prohibited actions, you have to wonder why anybody would oppose this rule. Who is advocating for the slaughtering of wolf pups or bear cubs in their dens, shooting them from aircraft or using snares to catch them by their necks and kill them? I think my colleague from New Mexico had a picture of such an event. Who is advocating for this kind of method?

This is why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy makes sure that if predator controls used, that they are based on science and not these inhumane actions. The wildlife rule is not a case of regulating sportsmen for traditional hunting practices, but it is making sure that they are doing so in a humane way.

The law requires that the Alaska wildlife refuges be managed to conserve fish and wildlife populations in their natural diversity, but Alaska's predator control practices are not consistent with that management requirement. They are directly opposite to conserving the natural diversity and are instead promoting the wholesale killing of predator species. So that is why we oppose this override of the regulation. I hope my colleagues will turn it down.

If we want to make improvements to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule, we can do so by legislation, or by working to change the rule. But by overturning this rule, you are also prohibiting the agency from fulfilling their job of protecting the wildlife refuge.

I want to make sure that all our colleagues understand that this is about protecting wildlife refuges in a humane way, allowing hunting practices, but doing so in a way that preserves the species.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I ask this of my colleague, the Senator from Oregon, because Washington, Oregon, and so many other States spend so much time innovating. The proposal we are seeing coming out of the House of Representatives really isn't innovation. I like to say that if you are looking at this, just at the specifics, the per capita cap is really just a budget mechanism. It doesn't have anything to do with innovation. It just has to do with basically triggering a cut to Medicaid and shifting that cost to the States. My concern is that we already do a lot with a lot less, and we know how to innovate. We would prefer that the rest of the country follow that same model. I would ask the Senator from Oregon: Do you see any innovation in this model, in capping and cutting the amount of Medicaid and shifting that to the States?

I ask the Senator from Oregon this through the Presiding Officer. The innovation that was already in the Affordable Care Act really did address the Medicaid population, in which so much of that cost is for long-term care and nursing home care. So Medicaid equals long-term care for so many Americans. In the Affordable Care Act we accelerated the process of shifting the cost to community-based care because it is more convenient for patients and up to one-third of the cost of a nursing home. So if we keep more people in their homes, that is better innovation.

In the Affordable Care Act, we incentivized States. In fact, we had 21 States take us up on that--including Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Texas, Ohio, Nevada, Nebraska. There are many States that are doing this innovation and basically trying to move the Medicaid population to community-based care so we can save money.

Savings from rebalancing could make up for a large portion of the money the House is trying to cut in this bill. Basically, they are not saving the money. They are shifting the burden to the States, instead of giving innovative solutions to people to have community-based care; that is, long-term care services and staying in their home longer. Who doesn't want to stay in their home longer? Then we support them through community-based delivery of long-term healthcare services, and we save the Nation billions of dollars.

In fact, our State did this over a 15-year period of time, and we saved $2.7 billion. That is the kind of innovation we would like to see. But instead of implementing the innovation we started in the Affordable Care Act, they are trying to cap the Medicaid funding, which basically is changing the relationship from a mutually supported State and Federal partnership to a capped federal block grant. They are just saying: We are going to cost-shift this burden to you the States.

I saw that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed the current House proposal and found it would result in a $387 billion cost shift to the States. Does the Senator from Oregon think that Oregon has the kind of money to take its percentage of that $370 billion?

To my colleague from Michigan: Does the Senator think the State of Michigan has the dollars to take care of that Medicaid population with that level of a cut?

Mr. President, if I could, I will ask the Senator from Oregon one more question, and maybe my other colleagues will join in.

When you do not realize the savings and you cost-shift to the States, some of the key populations that you hurt are pregnant women and children. We do not want to have less money. If you think about Medicaid, pregnant women and children are a big part of the population.

I know our colleague from Pennsylvania has joined us, and he has been a champion for the Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIP--and everything that we do for women and children. I don't know if he has seen this in his State. I don't know if the Senator from Oregon or the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to comment on this--on the notion that we are not realizing the savings from delivery innovations like rebalancing, and then figuring out how to best utilize those for the delivery of the services that so many people are counting on. With a per capita cap, you are really going to be starting in a very bad place with the people who need these resources the most, and when it comes to Medicaid, women and children are front and center in this debate.

I hate the fact that somebody is going to cost-shift to the States, that the States are not going to have enough money, and then the very people who would end up paying the price are the women and children. I don't know if the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Michigan, or the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to comment on that.