vote: the presiding officer: are any senators wishing to change their votes or are any senators wishing to vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 43. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider can considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of joshua m. kindred of alaska to be united states district judge for the district of alaska, signed by 17 senators. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent that the votes in this series be ten minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of joshua m. kindred of alaska to be united states district judge for the district of alaska shall be brought to a close. on this -- i'm sorry. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote or to vote? hearing none, the yeas are 52, the nays are 41. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture vote. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of matthew thomas schelp, of missouri. the presiding officer: by mandatory consent. is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of matthew thomas schelp, of missouri, to be u.s. district judge for the eastern district of missouri, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rules. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 72, the nays are 22. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of john fitzgerald kness of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: i unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of john fitzgerald kness of illinois to be u.s. district judge for the northern district of illinois shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: the presiding officer: is there any member in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 82, the nays are 12. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the scriewls -- standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of philip m. halpern of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the chemical weapon -- the question is is it the sense of the senate that philip m. halpern should be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. the yeas and nays have been ordered under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote: vote: the presiding officer: any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their votes? seeing none, the yeas are 75, the nais are -- nays are 18. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, philip m. halpern, of new york, to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today as the democrats seem to be in complete disarray with voting under way in new hampshire. for all of their anger, all of their outrage, they have failed to tap into all of the great things that to me and the people of wyoming that we see happening all across america. democrat primary voters in new hampshire seem to be on the verge of nominating for president of the united states a socialist. madam president, by any way you look at it, we have a strong, healthy and growing economy, and a socialist is now the frontrunner for the democrat nomination for president. socialist policies would bankrupt our country. what's their top priority? it seems to be a complete government takeover of health care in america. that means for the 180 million americans who get their health insurance through their jobs, each and every one of them would lose it. also, to pay for it, taxes would go up, they would go up significantly. this would be a crushing blow to the economy. the democrat party's sharp left turn has president clinton's long-term strategist james carville, as he said, scared to death. this is what he said on friday, james carville, we have candidates talking about open borders. he said they are talking about doing away with nuclear energy and with fracking. madam president, and then he added, you've got bernie sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote, he said, from jail cells. during friday's debate in new hampshire, the one that was nationally broadcast, there was hardly a positive word from the democrats about our country. our booming economy continues to create jobs at a record pace. millions of jobs. last month alone 225,000 new jobs. swee have a 50 -- we have a 50-year low in our country right now it is an historical number. we've created opportunity for all americans. everyone is better off. middle-class wages, blue collar wages are up. we have a middle class and blue collar boon in this country and americans realize it and they have high hopes for the future. still the 2020 democrats seem to have nothing positive to say about our economy and our country. no positive ideas, no positive vision, no positive agenda for the american people. clearly, madam president, when i listen to them, it's all about grandstanding, it's not about governing. republicans, however, have a results-driven agenda. the economic renaissance that we're seeing is a direct result of republican pro-growth policies. tax and regulatory relief, that's what has mattered to this economy. energy independence, that's what has mattered to this economy. pro-worker, pro-farmer trade deals, that's what has made a difference for this economy. we remain focused, madam president, on priority issues like lowering the cost of health care, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, securing our border, and building and rebuilding our aging roads and bridges. so, madam president, as the president said just last tuesday night during the state of the union address, he said the best is yet to come. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you very much. since tax reform was enacted in december of 2017, our economy has grown and strengthened with american families and businesses seeing real benefits. and you just heard senator barrasso say some of the same things about how the economy's booming. unemployment rates have dropped dramatically. with unemployment among hispanic, latino and african american workers at record lows. according to the bureau of labor statistics, average hourly earnings have grown at a rate of 3% or higher for 16 consecutive months with the largest wage gains concentrated in the bottom quarter of the wage scale. we should duly note that production workers' wages are growing much faster than wages for manager class. in short, lower-income workers are seeing the highest wage growth. but instead of looking at the positive economic effects of tax reform, our democratic colleagues insist that large corporations have received a massive giveaway and only the wealthy have benefited. that is simply not true. tax reform address a number of issues that were frequently highlighted by both political parties. in particular, tax reform made enormous progress towards creating a more competitive environment for american companies. now, before tax reform, the combined u.s. federal and state corporate tax rates was the highest in the developed world. 15 percentage points higher than the average of the other 35 advanced economies that are members of the organization of economic cooperation and development, which we commonly refer to around here as oecd. now, you heard about the last few years before the tax bill of companies going overseas. we had inversions, foreign acquisitions of u.s. companies, and the erosion of the u.s. tax base, these were all very significant problems that we addressed in the tax cut act of 2017. and with our worldwide tax system, companies were actually incentivized to store corporate profits in low-tax jurisdictions overseas instead of reinvesting them back here in the united states. how can that help the united states economy? we had perverse incentives to keep wealth out of this country. ironically, even democrats highlighted these same issues in the leadup to -- lead up to tax reform, a bipartisan recognition that we shouldn't have a tax system that encourages storing money overseas instead of bringing that money and capital back to the united states to create jobs here. they are only partisan issues now. as it turns out because tax reform was a republican effort. but both sides of the aisle knew these issues had to be addressed for u.s. companies to remain competitive and for the u.s. economy to continue leading the world. critics of tax reform complained that the 21% rate is too low, but with the average corporate tax rate of 21.7% among the oecd countries today, the united states is finally in line with our peers -- in other words, we can be competitive. as a result, u.s. companies are competitive and investments in the united states are more attractive not only to foreign companies but to u.s. companies that used to store money overseas. after tax reform legislation passed in 2017, business investment rose by 6.4% in 2018 while a weaker global economy, tariffs and other factors subdued growth last year in 2019, business investment in 2018 and 2019 combined was still 5.7 -- $5.7 trillion and that hit record highs. capital expenditures of s&p 500 companies have risen by 17% since tax reform and research and development expenditures of s&p 500 companies rose by 18%, all of this showing that our law accomplished what we wanted it to accomplish. hardly, then, the anemic response to tax reform that the democrat critics would have us believe, tax reform has changed our international tax rules to remove barriers that previously prevented companies from bringing foreign earnings home. in the seven quarters since enactment of the tax reform, u.s. companies have brought back to the united states more than $1 trillion of foreign earnings. and obviously u.s. companies are using these earnings to finance new capital expenditures, increase research and development, increase payrolls, pay down debt, and return cash to shareholders and retirement accounts. the companies are putting those earnings to work in this count country, not leaving them abroad. that economic gain and the jobs created as a result of it is because of the 2017 tax cut legislation. but we also took care to ensure that companies wouldn't be able to take advantage of the new u.s. tax system. tax reform made significant strides to address inversions, capitaovers of u.s. -- capit capitaovers of u.s. companies and erosion. you remember the outrage before the tax bill when there were inversions and foreign takeovers of u.s. companies. and then the result of erosion of our tax base. together lower tax rate and new international rules have changed the way that companies structure their business operations. for example, assurant, a global insurance company, changed its agreement so that its new parent company remains here in the united states. broadcom, a technology firm announced that it would return its headquarters to the united states, and this came after tax reform. similarly, several energy and pharmaceutical companies have had -- that had previously moved out of the united states also made the decision to return primarily because of tax reform. you know, the old, old saying can apply to this tax legislation. what we wanted to accomplish was accomplished and that old saying is the proof is in the pudding. so tax reform has leveled the playing field and made the united states a far more attractive place to do business. hardly the dire consequences that critics would have us believe. now, you know, critics never give up. not to be deterred, the critics continued to look for misleading information to distort the picture. most recently, they pointed to the congressional budget office projections as evidence that tax reform and recently-issued tech u.s. treasury department regulations have provided a windfall to corporations. i hate to see congressional budget office's professional work and nonpartisan work manipulated to say something it clearly does not. and i meant to use the word manipulated. first and foremost, c.b.o.'s, that's the congressional budget office, downward adjustment of expected corporate tax receipts does not imply that c.b.o. scores particularly treasury regulations or that a regulation departs from congressional intent. rather c.b.o.'s adjustments broadly reflect significant economic factors and changes in government data. in particular, c.b.o. adjusted its projections because we now know that bureau of economic analyses, estimates of corporate receipts between 2016 and 2018 were actually overstated. so you've got to make adjustments for that. in short, even pretax reform projections of corporate profits were really too high. so when the estimate of corporate profits is corrected, it translates into lower tax receipts. but the other side doesn't seem to acknowledge this. c.b.o. also took into account current economic factors like recent trade actions and tarif tariffs, strengthening of the u.s. dollar, and the softening of foreign economies, all of which affected expected corporate profits and ultimate tax receipts. but our critics don't seem to acknowledge that fact. in addition, congressional budget office revised its projections to reflect everything that we're learning about implementation of the new tax rules, including regulatory guidance, new forms and instructions that go with the tax forms, and modeling improvements to better reflect updated economic projections. and c.b.o. is only beginning to take into account how u.s. businesses are responding very positively to the new tax rules and treasury guidance. as many regulations are still being finalized, businesses are only starting to have needed certainty to invest in new property and equipment, to enjudge in mergers and ak -- engage in mergers and acquisitions, and to enter into new business transactions. the congressional budget office's projections are also based upon preliminary data, tax returns for the first year of the new law were filed less than six months ago, but the critics don't take that into consideration. the final data will not be available from the i.r.s. until later this year, and even then we'll still take time to fully analyze but our critics don't recognize that. all of these factors go into c.b.o.'s revised projections of corporate tax receipts and none of them support the claim that treasury provided a windfall to corporations. i think the critics ought to go the extra mile to study and understand the impact of the tax cut law. there simply is no basis then for the critics' claim that the revision to c.b.o.'s estimate of corporate receipts means that treasury has given away the store to big corporations through its regulations. despite the critics relentless attack, the benefits of tax reform are in fact proving out. all you've got to do is look at the good economy to know that that's the case. i'm encouraged by the promising economic data that i just referred to that suggests that american workers, american families, and american businesses are seeing positive effects. now, we must continue to promote policies that encourage u.s. businesses to keep operations on american soil. the 2017 bill does that. increase wages. the 2017 bill did that. and reinvest foreign earnings in the united states instead of leaving them overseas, and the 2017 tax bill does that. i hope that my democratic colleagues will stop criticize ring the -- criticizing the policies that have strengthened our economy and in fact consider how we can work together to make our tax laws work even better for american businesses and workers. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call mr. whitehouse: here on the floor today things seem back to normal. the floor is empty. we have a senator instead after chief justice in the chair. the quorum calls descend between the speeches. and our new pages are figuring out the non-impeachment routines of the floor. but outside of the senate, mr. president, things are anything but normal. the threat of climate change worsens by the minute. carbon emissions continue to rise globally. we hurtle toward calamity, and yet we do not act. what's stopping us? the biggest, most powerful, most motivated force preventing climate action is the fossil fuel industry. and of course it would be. the fossil fuel industry reaps the biggest subsidy in the history of the planet. the international monetary fund estimates the global subsidy for fossil fuel in the trillions of dollars every year. united states alone, the fossil fuel industry -- in the united states alone, the fossil fuel industry got a $650 billion subsidy in 2015, the most recent report from the i.m.f. that's about $2,000 from every woman, man, and child in the country. you wrote the check, and they will spend big bucks to defend that subsidy. in fact, to maintain their grip on that subsidy, fossil fuel companies deploy lots of propaganda on the american people. they swamp us in advertising. the game isn't just to sell you more gas. it's much bigger than that. professor robert brulle of drexel university now in rhode island at brown university together with his coauthors wrote a recent article, "corporate promotion and climate change." looking at oil companies carefully crafted public relations campaigns, deployed way back since legendary muckraker ida tirade talked about the greed of the standard oil company. to offset the nastiness, fossil fuel companies have attempted to burnish their image in various ways, brulle and his colleagues write. including contemporary, multimedia promotional campaigns to project the corporation as a positive, responsible, and legitimate social actor. ha. the public began to catch on to the harms of industrial pollution in the 1960's and 1970's and big oil deployed public relations campaign to stem the public opinion tide. one example brulle uses is mobile oil, prethe exxonmobil merger. in 1970, mobile began buying space o