Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 176 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 176 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6931-S6938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CLOTURE MOTION

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

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination
of Executive Calendar No. 340, Sarah A.L. Merriam, of
Connecticut, to be United States District Judge for the
District of Connecticut.
Charles E. Schumer, Brian Schatz, Benjamin L. Cardin,
Robert Menendez, Tammy Duckworth, Christopher A. Coons,
Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Jacky Rosen, Patrick J. Leahy,
Mazie K. Hirono, Margaret Wood Hassan, Jack Reed,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Tammy Baldwin, Richard J. Durbin,
Chris Van Hollen, Tina Smith.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 Sarah A.L. Merriam, of Connecticut, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Connecticut, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 408 Ex.]

YEAS--53

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--47

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). On this vote, the yeas are
53, the nays are 47.
The motion is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Inflation

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, from gas stations to grocery stores, to
utility bills and restaurant checks, the American people are being
pummeled by inflation. The cost of everything is going up.
Last week, the Commerce Department reported that a key indicator of
inflation had reached the highest level in three decades--30 years.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has said that we are unlikely to
turn a corner on this until sometime next year. How he knows that, I
don't know. Previously, he said, well, this inflation would be merely
transitory, a passing thing. But it is beginning to look like that is
not the case. And, clearly, he is mainly guessing.
With this as a backdrop, our Democratic colleagues are apparently
trying to figure out how to inflict even more economic pain on the
American people. They spent months negotiating solely among themselves
in order to bring about a radical transformation in our country by
spending money on programs we don't need or want--things like permanent
welfare for no work requirements; things like tax increases that,
contrary to President Biden's promise, will hit Americans earning less
than $400,000 a year; subsidies for millionaires; buying electric
vehicles that most average wage earners can't afford; taxes that will
hurt American businesses and help our major nation-state competitor,
China; as well as provide a range of so-called free--they like that
word ``free''--social safety-net programs that really aren't free at
all.
Now, this isn't critical funding necessary to lead America out of the
pandemic like we did last year on a bipartisan basis. This isn't even
designed to revive our struggling economy. I would argue that it would
do just the opposite. It would suppress the recovery from the recession
that was caused by the pandemic. This is merely a reckless, partisan
spending spree designed to grow the size of government's role in our
daily lives.
In recent weeks, I have heard from more than 50,000 of my
constituents--that is a lot--about one absurd example of government
overreach proposed by the administration and which is part of the
reconciliation bill that is now sitting in front of the House of
Representatives. The IRS already knows how much money you make, but now
the Biden administration wants to know how you spend it too. This isn't
a safeguard to stop illicit activity like money laundering or tax
fraud. That already exists. Any taxpayer who receives a transfer of
$10,000 or more in a single transaction has to report that to the IRS.
But what our Democratic colleagues want to do is to invade the privacy
of everyday Americans who rarely make five-digit transactions. So
tucked in the President's budget is a new IRS reporting requirement
with a much lower threshold, $600.
If you use your bank accounts to spend or receive more than $600 in a
year's time, our Democratic colleagues think that should be reported to
the IRS. So if you are writing a check for your mortgage or your rent
or maybe you are buying a new washer or dryer or refrigerator, the IRS
wants to know that you are spending that money.
This is an Agency that has already been plagued by scandals and has
hardly been a responsible steward of personal financial data.
Earlier this year, an unknown source within the IRS leaked more than
15 years' worth of taxpayer information to journalists. And we all
remember the IRS targeting conservative-leaning groups during the Obama
administration. But the IRS has given even more

[[Page S6932]]

personal financial data, literally conducting surveillance on the
American people. The trove of information that could be abused gets a
lot bigger.
Democrats want to give the IRS more manpower to sift through all of
this by doubling the size of the Agency, adding to an army of Internal
Revenue agents out searching for more revenue with which to grow the
government. So instead of a chicken in every pot, every household will
get an audit.
This is, I submit, a fundamental attack on the privacy and financial
freedom of everyday Americans and puts all Americans' data at risk of
being hacked or leaked.
It also places a huge new burden on our community banks and credit
unions. Having to organize and transmit all this additional data to the
IRS in a secure way is no easy task. Does the administration plan to
help local banks, credit unions do this? I doubt it. It is just going
to add to their overhead and to their administrative burdens.

Our Democratic colleagues also want to reinstate the so-called SALT
deduction, which allows wealthy individuals in blue States--it is no
coincidence--to pay less in taxes. According to the liberal Tax Policy
Center, 93 percent of those making a million dollars or more would get
a tax break.
So much for our Democratic colleagues' rhetoric about millionaires
and billionaires getting a tax break. They want to make sure that each
one of them gets about a $48,000 tax cut under their proposal. This
isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling to make ends meet;
it is a financial lifeline for millionaires and billionaires.
This type of legislation our colleagues are trying to pass includes a
massive, ill-conceived tax plan; government overreach; irresponsible
spending; and radical policies that put unnecessary burden on
beleaguered American workers and families.
Earlier this year, our Democratic friends charged nearly $2 trillion
to the taxpayer credit card in a party-line vote. Unlike the COVID-19
relief bills we passed last year virtually unanimously, one after the
other, when the Biden administration came into office, the first thing
they did was spend $2 trillion in borrowed money, only 10 percent of
which was related to COVID-19.
So they did that without any Republican help. Now they are trying to
figure out how to go on an even bigger spending blowout--once again,
all alone. But they think upping the credit limit should be a
bipartisan task. Our friends across the aisle have talked about how,
historically, lifting the debt ceiling has been a bipartisan endeavor,
but they failed to mention that so has spending.
There has never been a time in our country's history when one party
has spent trillions of dollars and aspires to spend trillions of
dollars more without the support of a single person on the other side
of the aisle.
Why would Republicans vote to increase the debt limit and sign off on
this reckless spending? If someone stole your credit card and ran up
the bill, would you up your own credit limit so they could continue
shopping? No way. But that is exactly what Democrats are asking
Republicans to do by upping the debt limit.
They have the votes. They have a process by which they can raise the
debt limit, and they need to do it before we risk a default, according
to the timeline given to us by Secretary Yellen.
So our Democratic colleagues have chosen to light taxpayer dollars on
fire, but we are not going to hand them another match. We have been
clear on that point since at least July. Unsurprisingly, our friends on
the other side don't like this plan. They see the dangers in continuing
to drive up the debt without any action to address the root causes, and
they want to have Republicans to share the blame.
But what needs to happen is some accountability because
accountability will bring with it some fiscal responsibility. But as
long as our Democratic colleagues can continue to spend trillions of
dollars in borrowed money on their reckless tax-and-spending spree and
have us join them in raising the debt limit, then no one--no voter, no
taxpayer--can actually know who is to blame.
Well, if Democrats want to spend alone, they have to up the debt
ceiling alone, too, and we know they have the tools and the votes to do
it. But rather than addressing this problem in July or August or
September, our Democratic colleagues have waited until the last minute
and march us closer and closer to a debt crisis. They have had the time
to up the debt limit on their own, and they have had the means to do
it. So they need to stop playing chicken with an economic crisis and do
what they know needs to be done.
So far, Democrats have not been held back by their razor-thin
majority. It didn't stop them from spending $2 trillion in borrowed
money at the beginning of this year. It hasn't slowed their plans to
try to spend trillions more this fall. And now it shouldn't stop them
from increasing the debt limit on their own so the American people can
see who is responsible and hold those elected officials accountable in
the 2022 election.
The Democratic majority of the Senate has embraced a go-it-alone
attitude on legislating all year, and these are just some of the
examples of what that has produced: tax increases on the middle class;
car subsidies for millionaires; taxes that hurt American businesses and
American jobs but actually help China; providing so-called free,
taxpayer-funded social safety net programs to try to turn the United
States into a European welfare state; increased IRS surveillance of the
everyday finances of average Americans; and I mentioned, finally, tax
breaks for millionaires and billionaires.
So now is the time to reap what our Democratic colleagues have sown,
and I hope they will act sooner rather than later.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, shortly, I will be making a unanimous
consent request to confirm the nomination of Ms. Karen Hedlund to be a
member of the Surface Transportation Board.
Ms. Hedlund served as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration, and before that, as Chief Counsel at the Federal
Highway Administration. She has spent most of her career in the
development and financing of infrastructure projects across the United
States, including improvements to the national freight rail system.
She is well qualified to be a member of the Surface Transportation
Board, which we know is so critical to the movement of freight; and her
appointment comes at a time when there are many important issues and
decisions before the Board.
Ms. Hedlund was nominated by the President in April. She received
bipartisan approval in the Commerce Committee now over 2 months ago,
and it is time for the full Senate to do the same.
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the following
nomination: Calendar No. 315, Karen Jean Hedlund, to be a member of the
Surface Transportation Board for a term expiring December 31, 2025. I
further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to
the nomination; and that the President be immediately notified of the
Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, article II of
the Constitution gives this body some important responsibilities,
including the responsibility to provide advice and consent on Officers
of the United States. We have to confirm people after they have been
nominated by the President.
As a Member of the Senate, I take this responsibility seriously, and
I do my due diligence once a nominee has been submitted by the
President and consideration by the Senate. I have done that here.
And in the process of that due diligence process with this nominee, I
submitted a number of written questions to Ms. Hedlund in order to
develop a better understanding of how she would respond to certain
issues that are directly relevant to the position for which she is
seeking confirmation from the Surface Transportation Board.
Specifically, I asked her how she would approach: 1, cost-benefit
analysis in proposed regulations; 2, the

[[Page S6933]]

scope of the SBT's rulemaking authority; 3, how she would approach
consideration of rate regulation, rate caps, or price controls; 4, her
definition of the public interest, which is a key term that comes up as
used in STB proceedings; 5, how she would balance Amtrak access to the
freight rail network with reliable freight service; and, 6, how she
would approach the carrying out of the NEPA process, including the
definitions behind the key regulatory terms at issue.
These are all issues that are really relevant to the STB, and these
are the kinds of questions that deal with the kinds of things she would
do if confirmed as a member of the STB.
Needless to say, I was disappointed with my responses. Some of the
answers avoided answering my questions; some answers appeared to be
purposely vague; and some refused even directly to answer the question.
So for these reasons, I voted against Ms. Hedlund's nomination before
the Commerce Committee, and my position has not changed since that vote
took place. I am not comfortable granting my consent today, and I will
not be, until I have the information and more thorough, responsive
answers to my reasonable questions. And so for these reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Ms. BALDWIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Afghanistan

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of the
launch of the U.S. military offensive in Afghanistan against the
Taliban and al-Qaida in response to their ruthless attack on America.
As a result of our Nation's resolve and the sacrifice and service of
our brave men and women over the past two decades, Osama bin Laden is
dead, and our homeland has been guarded against additional large-scale
terror attacks.
Up until President Joe Biden's sloppy and poorly planned exit from
Afghanistan, al-Qaida and the Taliban were on the run, but today, due
to the decisions of President Biden, the radical extremists who
sponsored Osama bin Laden and partnered with al-Qaida, who are
responsible for the deadliest terror attack in history, are back in
power.
How did we get here?
It became apparent at last week's Armed Services hearing, after I
questioned our top military leaders, that President Biden made a
completely unconditional withdrawal. The President simply looked at the
calendar and saw what he thought would be an easy political victory and
decided we would be out of Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of 9/11.
Another fact that became clear after the hearing last week is that
President Biden casually dismissed the sound advice of his own military
leaders. He discounted the tactical and strategic value of keeping a
small force in place to defeat the terrorists. Then, to cover for those
mistakes, President Biden misled the public about the advice that he
was given and refused to take.
So let's be clear about what happened as a result of the President's
ignoring his own generals' recommendations. He abandoned American
citizens behind enemy lines, left strong allies and partners to fend
for themselves against the Taliban, tarnished America's reputation, and
created the conditions that led to the devastating loss of 13 brave
American servicemembers. He stubbornly led our country into the most
disastrous diplomatic and military debacle in modern history.
Those now in control of Afghanistan are a who's who of international
terrorists. Nearly half of the members of the new Afghan Government are
on the U.N. Security Council's terrorism blacklist--that is the U.N.,
folks, their terrorism blacklist--including the Acting Prime Minister
and both of his Deputies. At least two principal members of the Haqqani
network, which is a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, are
in the highest positions of the Taliban's new government. The Minister
of the Interior is on the FBI's ``Most Wanted'' list. His uncle, the
Minister of Refugees, is designated a terrorist by our government.
Together, the U.S. Government values the reward for their arrests at
$15 million.
The Biden doctrine put America's most wanted back in charge of a
terrorist training ground and increased the risk of attacks against our
homeland. And we didn't leave the terrorists emptyhanded either. In our
rush for the exits, we left tens of billions of dollars' worth of
military weapons and gear behind, which is now in the hands of the
enemy. We can expect to encounter this tactical equipment again on the
battlefield--but our own equipment being used against us. Here are just
a few numbers: 600,000 weapons, 22,000 humvees, and more than 200
aircraft. Folks, we left America's most wanted with America's best
weapons.
But it is not just weapons and military capabilities; President Joe
Biden left behind our own citizens, stranded in a foreign country
governed by known terrorists. As much as the administration wants to
act like this is all in the past and we have closed the book on
Afghanistan, it is just not reality. Right now, we have American
citizens stranded in Afghanistan. Let that sink in for just a moment,
folks. Americans and our Afghan partners, who worked with us over the
past two decades--interpreters and translators--are all sitting ducks
for the Taliban. When we ask for an accurate accounting of who and how
many are still left, the Pentagon points the finger at the State
Department, which then goes radio silent.
The administration is downplaying the evils of the Taliban, and its
refusal to state hard facts is stunning.
The chorus of praise from the State Department and the White House in
calling the Taliban ``businesslike'' and ``professional'' would be
comical if it weren't so horrifying. If using Kabul's soccer stadiums
to publicly execute dissidents, overseeing the legal rape of young
girls through child marriage, and settling disputes by chopping off
hands and feet is how the Taliban does business, then President Biden
is right--they are truly pros.
GEN Mark Milley admitted the exit was a ``strategic failure'' in his
testimony last week. Folks, that is an understatement. President Biden
and his top foreign policy adviser, Secretary of State Antony Blinken,
have serially failed to own up to this fiasco. Someone must take
responsibility for this colossal failure.
As we uncovered again last week, President Biden's decisions led us
here, right back where we began. Both General McKenzie and General
Milley testified last week that ``al-Qaida is still at war with us''
and that within the year, they ``could be reconstituted with
aspirations to attack the U.S.'' During Joe Biden's campaign, he
promised a return to normalcy. Little did we know that meant a return
to vulnerability and an America that is less safe from terrorists who
attacked our homeland 20 years ago.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, on August 16, as everything was
collapsing in Afghanistan, President Biden said:

We have developed counterterrorism over-the-horizon
capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed
on any direct threats to the United States in the region and
to act quickly and decisively if needed.

He was stating that we don't have to have an on-the-ground presence
in Afghanistan to keep Americans safe and that we can rely instead on
over-the-horizon strikes, where we use drones and other assets to take
out terrorists from hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
Since then, we have learned that the President wasn't being truthful.
At the Senate Armed Services Committee's open hearing on
Afghanistan's disaster, CENTCOM Commander General Kenneth McKenzie
testified on the immense challenges we face in preventing terrorist
groups, like al-Qaida and ISIS, from using Afghanistan as a launching
pad to attack us here at home.

[[Page S6934]]

What President Biden seems to conveniently ignore is that a
successful over-the-horizon counterterrorism strategy requires more
than just the ability to hit targets across long distances. We also
have to be able to identify targets; we have to be able to locate
targets; and we have to be able to reach those targets.
To do this effectively, we first need a U.S. presence in the region
or at least a reliable on-the-ground partner there. Without that, our
ability to gather the intelligence necessary to pick the right targets
is severely degraded.
We saw the tragic consequences of acting on incomplete intelligence
on August 29, when a drone strike mistakenly killed 10 innocent
Afghans, including 7 children and an aid worker with ties to the United
States.
Second, we need a reliable way to actually get to the target.
President Biden likes comparing Afghanistan to countries like Yemen
and Syria, but there is a huge difference between these countries.
Afghanistan is landlocked, and our drones can't just fly over the ocean
to get there, like they can to Syria and to Yemen.
When it comes to Afghanistan, our drones have to cross over other
countries on the way, and those countries are not obligated to allow us
to use their airspace.
General McKenzie confirmed to me during our hearing that, because we
have withdrawn from Afghanistan, we need to rely on Pakistan's airspace
if we want to reach targets like ISIS-K or al-Qaida, and that should
concern every American.
Pakistan, historically, is the Taliban's fiercest international
supporter, and they could revoke our access at any point. And if they
do, we would need to ask China, Iran, or Central Asian nations with
close ties to Russia for permission to use their airspace or even their
bases in order to conduct counterterrorism operations.
When I asked about this during the SASC hearing, Secretary Austin
confirmed recent reports that the U.S. military--the finest fighting
force in the world--has had conversations with Russia about using their
bases in Central Asian nations on Afghanistan's northern border.
Secretary Austin insisted that we haven't asked for Russia's
permission to use these bases; we are simply considering an offer that
they made. But if we have to consider an offer from the Kremlin just to
keep al-Qaida from surging back in Afghanistan, President Biden hasn't
put America on a very strong footing.
The bottom line is that our chaotic exit from Afghanistan has made it
much harder for the U.S. military to keep the American people safe from
terrorists.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Milley said during last week's
hearing that Presidents are elected to make strategic decisions. He
also told us that the Afghanistan withdrawal was a strategic failure.
And he was right. The way things stand today, we are at risk of
recreating the same conditions that existed before 9/11. The Taliban is
running things in Kabul, and given their longstanding partnership with
al-Qaida, it is naive to expect that they would prevent these
terrorists from operating freely.
Anyone who says that we are safer today than we were 20 years ago is
getting ahead of themselves, and that goes for President Biden too. He
needs to be more honest about what his decision to leave Afghanistan,
no matter the cost, means for our Nation's security.
Real leaders take responsibility for their mistakes; they do not make
excuses for them. And, unfortunately, that is all we have heard from
the President so far.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, over the past--first of all, let me just
agree with the Senator from Nebraska. She is exactly on target here.
This is a problem that we are in a--I have said several times, I cannot
remember a time that we have not been--that we have been in a greater
threat than we are today.
Over the past 2 weeks, just to kind of let you know where we are now,
the Armed Services Committee held two classified sessions and two open
hearings on Afghanistan. That is the committee that actually had these
in their schedule. These are really eye-openers, and I think we have a
lot of time to uncover what happened and where we go from here.
First, we heard from General Milley, the commander on the ground in
Afghanistan through July. He went up to the July period of time. Then
we heard from the Pentagon's top policy official, Colin Kahl. In open
testimony, we heard from Secretary of Defense Austin, the President's
top military adviser; General Milley; and General McKenzie, who is in
charge of the combatant command that oversees the Middle East. We also
heard from two outside experts with decades of experience following
Afghanistan and the region. Here is what we learned. Now, I am going to
list these things. There are actually seven things we learned, and it
is very significant.
No. 1, we learned that top military leaders advised President Biden
to keep at least 2,500 troops. Now, the President came out and said
that wasn't true. Yet every military person who offered testimony has
said, yes, that is exactly true. They all recommended to President
Biden to keep at least 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. If not, then, you
know the results that are coming from that. You know what we are living
with today.
This advice goes counter to what President Biden told the American
people back in August. He said his generals did not advise him to leave
troops there. Now we know that is not true, and we know that he said
that and he misled the American people. This is a very significant
point.
The second thing: As I said, we learned that al-Qaida was never gone
from Afghanistan. As Biden says, they were there all along, and they
were a big part of the Taliban's victory. Now they are focused on
external operations. Al-Qaida and ISIS could be able to strike
America's soil as soon as a year from now; that is, striking us on our
soil here in America. Even worse, the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a
shot of adrenaline in the arm of the radical Islamic terrorists
everywhere. They now have a victory to point to.
The third thing: We learned that by completely withdrawing from
Afghanistan, we nearly zeroed out our capabilities to strike those same
terrorist organizations. We understand this. Not many people would
disagree with this. General McKenzie said he was not confident that the
United States would be able to prevent al-Qaida or ISIS from using
Afghanistan as a launching pad for terrorist activity, and here is
why--and this is important. The administration isn't talking about
this. Afghanistan poses a unique set of challenges. It is landlocked.
We don't have any bases nearby. This was driven home by our Senator--a
few minutes ago--from Nebraska. Our generals confirmed that it is
extremely difficult and costly to get the intelligence and conduct the
types of operations the President said he would do. This came from all
of the military leaders.
Let's not forget--we still have not killed the terrorists directly
responsible for the attack that killed 13 U.S. servicemembers. Just
imagine--they are still out there.
President Biden decided to put the Taliban in charge, hoping they
changed. The first thing they did was broadcast a video on Afghan
national TV saying the United States deserved the 9/11 attack. It turns
out that the Taliban is the old Taliban. They haven't really changed a
bit. What this means is that Afghanistan is now the safest place in the
world for radical Islamic terrorism. We are at greater risk, and we are
less safe.
The fourth thing out of seven: We learned--and I quote General
McKenzie directly--``The war on terror is not over, and the war in
Afghanistan is not over either.'' But President Biden told the American
people and told the whole world that the war is over. We know better
than that. Evidently, the terrorists didn't get the memo. As General
Milley put it, ``Al-Qaida is still at war with us, and never has not
been.''
No. 5: We learned without a shadow of a doubt that our allies and
partners and our adversaries, too, are questioning our credibility and
resolve. In fact, General Milley said that our credibility has been
``damaged.'' At last week's hearing, our experts confirmed that
President Biden's botched withdrawal has caused our allies to question
our ability to stick to our strategies and policies.

[[Page S6935]]

No. 6: We learned that our military leaders would not call President
Biden's evacuation operation an ``extraordinary success'' like he did.
General Milley called it a ``strategic failure.''
Now, I want to be clear. This wasn't a failure on the part of our
troops. Our troops served admirably. They rescued 120,000 people. They
did what they were told to do. Their Commander in Chief led them
astray.
As Dr. Vali Nasr said just the other day--he told our committee last
Thursday that the end game in Afghanistan was not our ``finest
moment.'' That is an understatement, and that is someone trying to
figure out some way to justify what went on.
The last thing, No. 7: We learned that President Biden simply ignored
the conditions-based approach.
Now, one thing I will say about the previous approach. People are
confused sometimes about what our previous President said. He had a
conditions-based approach, and the hallmark of it or the center of that
conditions-based approach was that we would leave troops there to
protect our Americans. We don't even know right now how many Americans
are there.
So we learned that President Biden simply ignored the conditions-
based approach. President Biden could have easily said: The Taliban has
not met our conditions. We are going to stay in Afghanistan and ensure
that no terrorists are able to hit us.
That is what his military advisers recommended that he say, and he
didn't do that. In fact, President Biden ignored the conditions on the
ground and instead decided to accept a significant amount of strategic
risk. That means the United States is less safe today, and our
credibility for the future is shot through, and that is what his
decision means.
We lost credibility because we left Americans and our Afghan allies
behind. No one will believe what America says after this, and I am not
sure why they should. I can't think of a time in history that this has
happened. This is simply just something that is brand new.
One thing we didn't get clear answers on despite the repeated
bipartisan requests is exactly how many Americans and Afghan partners
did we leave behind and what is going to happen to them. DOD pointed to
the State Department and vice versa. That is just unacceptable.
We don't know how many people we left behind. You know, we heard the
Secretary actually made a statement approximating at one time between
3- and 4- and 500, and the next approximation was closer to 10,000. So
we don't really know that. It is bad enough that we leave them behind,
but we don't even know how many people we left.
This is why I am going to continue calling for more hearings until we
get--we have to get the answers. This isn't going to go away.
Why does all this matter? America is less safe than we were before
because of President Biden's decisions. Six years ago, former Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates said:

I think [President Biden] has been wrong on . . . every
major foreign policy and national security issue over the
past four decades.

America is now more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. We all
understand that, and the whole world understands that. We have no plan
to meet that threat.
We also have to think about what this means for our biggest
challenge, and that is, of course, our challengers of China, Russia,
North Korea, Iran. They are all celebrating now. China is engaged in a
historic nuclear buildup--one that we have never seen anything like
before. Russia just conducted its largest military exercise in four
decades. They are watching this debacle and thinking how weak America
looks. Now, if President Biden can't get counterterrorism right, how
can his administration put together a strategy to confront China and
Russia?
Unfortunately, this strategic failure of our Afghanistan exit is
encouraging our adversaries to test us--the exact opposite of
deterrence. That is what I am worried about now. I am more worried
about it after last week. That is why I am going to keep fighting for
more open hearings so the American people and our adversaries and our
enemies and our friends will understand what it is all about. And this
will be the real America, not what they experienced recently.
That is why I continue to push for adequate defense funding, to make
sure that we prioritize nuclear modernization, and to pass this year's
NDAA as soon as we can get it to the floor.
By the way, this is the one bill that I have every expectation we
will get. The NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, is one that
we have passed for 61 consecutive years. I have every expectation that
we will do it now. I don't like the idea that the Democrats are putting
this off as if there is no threat out there. I don't think that is
going to happen.
That is why we have to keep getting to the bottom of this. We have
taken some big hits--big hits--out there, and we have got to recover.
OK.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I am here today to join my colleagues
and first associate myself with all of the words from the ranking
Republican from the Armed Services Committee, Senator Inhofe.
Very well said, Senator, and I agree wholeheartedly.
I express my profound disappointment in President Biden's handling of
the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. The American people and
certainly my constituents in North Dakota are upset, and they have
every right to be.
For weeks, we were inundated with horrifying stories of Americans and
our allies fleeing for their lives, paired with the constant stream of
disturbing images and videos out of Afghanistan as it was taken over by
the Taliban. Yet, somehow--somehow--President Biden has the audacity to
call the withdrawal an ``extraordinary success.'' Well, President Biden
is wrong. It was not an extraordinary success. The withdrawal was an
abject failure, and President Biden bears all of the responsibility for
it, and that is to say that he is the reason it was an abject failure,
because our heroes in uniform did an incredible job against very
difficult odds and, frankly, with very poor leadership coming from the
Oval Office.
The reality is, the President misled the American people to justify
his decisions and to downplay his failures. Now, terrorists are
emboldened, our allies are questioning the resolve of the United
States, and the United States is less safe because of it.
The reality is, his deceitful rhetoric really began several months
ago. In August, he led us to believe our military leaders were united
in their support of his withdrawal plans. Like many of my colleagues, I
expressed concerns at the time when his plans were first announced and
urged him to follow a conditions-based withdrawal. He did not.
To rationalize his choices, he worked to convince us that the most
senior leaders in the Pentagon were standing behind him, agreed with
him. They gave him this advice, he said. As we have heard from multiple
generals, that is simply not true.
The President also misled us about the conditions on the ground in
Afghanistan. In an August speech, he said the Afghan military force had
``300,000 strong, incredibly well equipped fighters.'' The Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction said in a report that
is not true. It said that of the 300,000 members of the Afghan National
Defense and Security Forces, only 182,000 of them were Afghan National
Army members and the rest were members of the Afghan National Police.
Well, when I discuss the number of servicemembers in our Armed
Forces, I don't include the number of police officers or even FBI
agents. That would be inaccurate at best, and then deceitful at worst.
Yet, here, the President is doing exactly that.
President Biden used that 300,000 number to claim the Afghan
Government could defend itself, and he later tried to say no one could
predict their forces would fall so quickly.
Was he being dishonest with the American people, or was he just not
being given accurate information by his senior leadership about the
conditions there?
Well, neither ignorance nor incompetence are a very good answer.

[[Page S6936]]

Later in the month, when it became clear the withdrawal was going to
be a failure, President Biden insisted that the United States would get
all Americans who wanted to leave out of Afghanistan. Well, he didn't.
He failed.
And no one, including him--and least of all him--wants to take
responsibility. The State Department says, you know, talk to the
Defense Department. The Defense Department says talk to the State
Department. But no one is taking responsibility.
And I say the buck stops in the Oval Office with the President, who
let that happen and who is letting his team dodge taking
responsibility, all while Americans fear for their lives in a country
run by terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.
Near the end of August, after 13 brave U.S. military members were
killed in an ISIS-K terrorist attack during the botched withdrawal,
President Biden rushed to release a statement taking credit for this
retaliatory drone strike.
He said: ``I said we would go after the group responsible for the
attack on our troops and innocent civilians in Kabul, and we have.''
Well, except he hadn't. It was later revealed, as we know, that the
strike did not take out any ISIS-K leaders. In fact, it took out 10
civilians, including 7 children. But, since then, the President said
nothing. He didn't say anything about this horrifying revelation when
it was clear that he misled the American people in the wake of the
strike.
Our military leaders did not agree with the withdrawal plans. The
Afghan Army was not prepared to defend itself. We did not get every
American out of the country, and justice was not delivered to ISIS-K or
its leaders after it killed 13 American heroes.
And what now? What do we have to show for it?
Well, America is less safe than it was when President Biden became
President. As our top military leaders testified in yet another
contradiction of President Biden's claims, al-Qaida is alive in
Afghanistan and looks to carry out a strike right here on American
soil.
How are we supposed to stop it?
Our military leaders don't have faith in the over-the-horizon
strategy that President Biden repeatedly touts to give us reliable
information.
Who is going to help us?
Our strongest allies and partners and longest standing friends
vocally distanced themselves from us amid this botched withdrawal.
All of this is what President Biden called an extraordinary success.
Well, it is an extraordinary embarrassment is what it is. The American
people are smart enough to not fall for such an obvious attempt to hide
the truth from them.
That is why we, on the Armed Services Committee, are going to
continue investigating the withdrawal and holding the Commander in
Chief accountable for his poor judgment and actions, even if he won't
take the responsibility. That is what our constituents expect and
deserve, and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting those efforts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary
of Operation Enduring Freedom, and the start--the beginning--of those
combat operations in Afghanistan. It is a benchmark that makes what has
happened on the ground during and since our disastrous withdrawal from
Kabul all the more disgusting.
Over the past 2 months, we have listened in disbelief as mouthpieces
at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the White House talked about
the Taliban in the same way they would have addressed a legitimate
governing body.
Last week, during a hearing before the Armed Services Committee, we
saw our civilian and military leaders evade responsibility for the
violence, death, and chaos that has occurred on their watch. But we
also listened closely as they revealed appalling inconsistencies
between the spin from the White House and the reality of the situation
on the ground.
Here is the reality: Afghanistan is under the control of terrorists.
These terrorists have longstanding ties with al-Qaida and the Haqqani
network, and those relationships aren't going to take a back seat now
that the Taliban is in charge of the entire country. This was no
ordinary transfer of power. Afghanistan isn't Germany or France or the
United States, and we shouldn't pretend that it is, because it is
impossible to act as a legitimate government when your goal is not to
govern but your goal is to manipulate through acts of terror.
This is what the Taliban is doing, and it is not happening in secret.
The cameras are rolling. The world is watching. Inclusivity clearly
isn't a priority, as much as the White House would like to make out
that it is. The Taliban cleared out the women's affairs ministry and
replaced it with ``Ministry for Preaching and Guidance and the
Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.''
The Taliban's desire to curry favor with China has Uyghurs living in
Afghanistan running scared. Afghanistan was a haven for these people
during the Cultural Revolution, and now the families of those who fled
are afraid that the Taliban is going to round them up--yes, round up
the Uyghur Muslims--and sell them--that is right--sell them to the
Chinese Communist Party in exchange for economic aid.
Fears that the Taliban would weaponize access to the internet became
reality before the last American left the country. They are well on
their way to creating a tightly controlled online cesspool of dangerous
anti-Western propaganda.
Meanwhile, the Afghan economy is in the gutter. The Taliban's
military campaign shut down basic commerce in much of the country,
making food shortages worse and putting a million children--a million
children--at risk of starvation and death.
Healthcare infrastructure is collapsing. And now the Afghan people
are facing the possibility of blackouts because the Taliban can't be
bothered to figure out how they are going to pay the electric bill.
And what intel we do have suggests that al-Qaida will use this chaos
void left by Biden's disastrous withdrawal to rebuild their operations.
That is right--al-Qaida is present in Afghanistan.
I think it important to understand that all of this violence and
disorder barely scratches the surface of what the Taliban is capable of
instigating.
On August 20, President Biden stated with absolute certainty: ``I
have seen no question of our credibility from our allies around the
world.''
During last week's hearing, General Milley disagreed with that
assessment. I disagree with that assessment, as do many Tennesseeans
that I talk with when I am home every weekend. They understand that
Operation Enduring Freedom may have come to an end, but that the world
is still watching to see how the United States of America is going to
respond to one of the most anti-equality, anti-peace, and anti-freedom
organizations on the face of the Earth.
Our actions and our reactions will inform those from the rest of the
world, and it is time for the Biden administration to recognize that
and to act accordingly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Rounds and I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes each before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, it gives me no pleasure to stand on the
Senate floor today and talk about President Biden's ill-advised and
chaotic withdrawal; to talk about the consequences for the people of
Afghanistan, who trusted us and who took our side for 20 years; and to
talk about the tremendous harm it has done to America's reputation.
The President, I think, believes that the cost of this debacle has
been only a few weeks of bad press. I think he is, sadly, wrong.
Perhaps the President is banking on the American people forgetting that
the disaster took place on his watch, but it turns out this is a
disaster of historic proportions. We will be reeling from this debacle
for years and decades to come.
The President may try to change the subject, but the cold truth is
that our

[[Page S6937]]

Nation will be paying the price when we are dead and gone and these
pages are in the position of senior leadership in this country.
Last week, my colleagues and I, on the Armed Services Committee,
heard directly from our Nation's top military leaders who had been
advising the President on Afghanistan. Their testimonies made clear
what we had known all along, that President Biden not only ignored
their advice, which he has the power to do as Commander in Chief of the
Armed Forces, but that he then misrepresented that advice to the
American people.
In a national TV interview, when asked whether top military advisers
had recommended leaving a small troop presence behind to keep a lid on
the situation, which would have kept all hell from breaking loose, the
President insisted that no one, to his knowledge, had made that
recommendation.
We know that statement by Joe Biden was not true. The President got
good advice, and then incredibly pled ignorance.
He also got good advice from Democrats. And I would point out my
colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, when this was first
broached in an open meeting and the administration was explaining what
was going to take place, Senator Whitehouse said this sounds like it is
going to be a lot like the fall of Saigon in April of 1974. Senator
Whitehouse, as the son of a Foreign Service Officer, had an all too
close recollection of the disaster that occurred in Saigon back in the
seventies, and he warned the administration officials that this might
happen again.
And yet the President said no one, to his knowledge, made this
recommendation or gave these warnings. This is a President who promised
to shoot straight with the American people, who said in February: ``You
can handle anything as long as you are told the truth.''
I wish the President actually believed that and subscribed to that
and lived by that.
The American people can handle the truth, and they need to be told
the truth. Here is one bit of hard truth from the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, General Milley: ``Our exit from Afghanistan was a
`strategic failure.' ''
From the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: ``It has caused `damage' to
America's credibility.''
That is from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I appreciate him
leveling with the committee and leveling with the American people.
That damage was on full display this past weekend, when the former
Afghan Ambassador, Adela Raz, was asked by Axios: Do you still trust
the United States?
Her answer was simple, bleak, and understandable: ``No. Sorry.''
That was her answer: ``No. Sorry.''
She does not trust the United States anymore.
This loss of trust extends far beyond Afghanistan. As General Milley
noted, ``Our credibility with allies and partners around the world and
with adversaries is being intensely reviewed by them.'' And he said,
yes, ``damaged'' is the correct word.
Simply put, when we abandon our friends, our partners around the
world start to wonder if they can trust us, if we will have their
backs. This hurts our ability to cooperate with our allies to deter
threats and to provide security for the American people, and it
emboldens our adversaries to act more aggressively.
We have already seen this from China in the past week. China has been
signaling to Taiwan by ramping up their air missions near Taiwan. They
have been signaling to our friends in Taiwan that America is an
unreliable partner. Even before our troops had fully left Kabul,
Chinese media wasted no time predicting that we will also abandon
friends in Taiwan if and when China invades that country--a matter of
concern.
Will this embolden Iran? Terrorist groups in Pakistan who support the
Taliban remain a serious concern.
But perhaps the worst breach of trust in this dark chapter was
between our government and our own people. During the withdrawal,
President Biden assured us on national television--and I quote the
President's grammar--``If there is American citizens left in
Afghanistan, we're gonna stay to get them all out.''
``If there is American citizens left in Afghanistan, we're gonna stay
to get them all out.''
Days later, that promise went out the window. The President dismissed
those Americans staying by saying many of them wanted to stay in
Afghanistan.
This repeated pattern of broken promises and our failure to own these
decisions will only further weaken our country, our alliances, and our
national security.
Sadly, we must get about the business of rehabilitating our
reputation with our allies and the way our enemies and adversaries look
at us.
I stand with my colleagues today who are committed to holding this
administration accountable.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of
the day the United States entered Afghanistan--the beginning of
Operation Enduring Freedom.
On October 7, 2001, the U.S. military conducted its first strike on
the terrorists responsible for attacking our Nation on 9/11.
As President Bush said on that day: It was not a mission we asked for
but a mission that we would fulfill.
For the past two decades, brave men and women have answered the call
and put on the uniform of our country to fight terrorists in the name
of freedom. We were a beacon of hope in a region of chaos. Our presence
made a difference.
As I travel my home State of South Dakota, I have heard from many
people who were disturbed by the events that unfolded during our final
days in Afghanistan. I share their frustrations.
Together, we watched the Taliban forcefully regain control of an
entire country that we worked so hard to keep free from terrorist
groups. We watched the credibility of the United States on the world's
stage diminish as we carelessly left our friends and allies behind. We
watched civilians hopelessly cling to the wings of aircraft in
desperate hope of escape. And we watched 13 brave men and women in
uniform lose their lives while helping others seek freedom. As we mourn
the loss of their lives, we recognize and appreciate their service to
our Nation.
We also remember all those who fought by our side for 20 years, many
of whom remain trapped in Afghanistan.
A citizen of South Dakota, Brandy Roseland, a veteran from Belle
Fourche, worked as a contractor in Afghanistan. That is where she met
her interpreter. According to Brandy, her interpreter served with the
highest distinction and faced great personal risk, often putting
himself in harm's way to aid and protect Americans and his fellow
Afghans.
On one such occasion, Brandy's interpreter discovered an American
contractor who died in an accident outside of Kabul. The interpreter
singlehandedly returned the contractor's body, as well as sensitive
equipment and documents, to the U.S. Embassy. That took courage. Brandy
returned to the United States, but she stayed in contact with her
interpreter.
When Afghanistan began to fall to the Taliban, she knew that she
needed to do all she could to help him get out safely. That is when
Brandy called us and asked if we could help him escape the clutches of
the Taliban.
For weeks, our office worked relentlessly to maneuver his application
for a special immigrant visa throughout the bureaucratic process at the
State Department. Our work was ultimately successful from an
administrative standpoint, but the overall mission was a failure.
While we had done all we could to help the interpreter receive his
visa, our forces had exited before he could get on a plane to safety
because of the President's date certain which he set for withdrawal.

Today, this interpreter remains in hiding in Afghanistan. If he is
found by the Taliban, his fate will certainly be sealed.
We all know that there are no easy answers when it comes to
Afghanistan, but there was clearly a wrong one.
For months, we had warned of the perils of making an arbitrary
decision based on the calendar as opposed to an assessment of the
conditions on the ground. And we weren't alone.

[[Page S6938]]

As the only Republican member of both the Armed Services and Foreign
Relations Committees, I have had the opportunity these past few weeks
to hear from the senior military officers who advised President Biden:
General Milley, Secretary Austin, and General McKenzie. Their message
to the President was clear: a withdrawal on a date certain, without
conditions, would lead to the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban.
Despite receiving the best military advice in the world, President
Biden decided to use his own judgment, and he made the wrong decision.
His directive to withdraw on a date certain, without regard for the
conditions on the ground, needlessly put American soldiers in harm's
way and forced our military to undertake an assignment which they
simply could not totally complete.
Our military simply ran out of time. They could not get all of our
Americans out, and they could not get all of our Afghan allies out,
including Brandy's interpreter.
But it didn't have to end this way. Our military leaders offered the
President the correct path forward. Their Commander in Chief failed
them.
Lately, the President has blamed a lot of people for his failure.
This includes the Afghan security forces and his own generals, who he
falsely claimed advised him to make this decision. But this does not
fall on any of them.
President Biden owns this debacle, and history will not judge him
kindly. Because of his error, al-Qaida now has a breeding ground.
America is less safe. The world is less safe.
I will close with a message for our veterans. While I was Governor, I
attended 31 funerals in South Dakota for South Dakotans who died
fighting the War on Terror. We will not forget their sacrifice nor
their family's loss.
While freedom may not endure in Afghanistan today, for 20 years,
you--you veterans--you protected our Nation and kept the fight away
from our doorstep. Your service was not in vain. Your sacrifice made a
difference. You represent the best of our country, and your Nation is
grateful.
Please always remember it is not the politician who protects our
right to vote; it is not the journalist who protects our freedom of
speech; and it is not the preacher who protects our freedom of
religion. All of our freedoms are defended and protected, generation
after generation, by the men and women who put on the uniform of the
United States of America.
We are grateful to you for your sacrifice and your service. May God
continue to bless all of you veterans, and may the Good Lord continue
to bless these United States of America.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.

Nomination of Sarah A. L. Merriam

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today, the Senate will consider Sarah
Merriam's nomination to be a United States District Judge for the
District of Connecticut. I support the nomination of this highly
qualified jurist.
As a U.S. magistrate judge for over 6 years, Judge Merriam has
presided over hundreds of matters, including a number of trials that
proceeded to final judgment. She has proven herself to be evenhanded,
impartial, and mindful of the limited role that judges play in our
system of justice.
Judge Merriam also has extensive experience litigating in Federal
court--both in private practice and as an assistant Federal defender
for nearly 8 years.
Letters of support the Judiciary Committee received for Judge
Merriam's nomination underscore the widespread respect she has earned
for her skill, qualifications, temperament, and fidelity to the rule of
law. The letters came from both Democrats and Republicans and from
prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Two Republican attorneys who practice law in Connecticut--Ross
Garber, who has worked for numerous Republican officials, and Stanley
Twardy, Jr., who served as U.S. Attorney in Connecticut under President
Reagan--wrote: ``We are former advisors and appointees of Republican
officials and have been involved in the selection and vetting of
judges. Today we write in unqualified support of the nomination of
Magistrate Judge Sarah Merriam to serve as a judge on the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.''
They added, ``As a magistrate judge, Judge Merriam has been a
significant and valuable part of the life of the District Court in
Connecticut. As a United States District Judge she will be a rare asset
to the District and the judiciary as a whole.''
The Judiciary Committee also received a letter from 26 former Federal
prosecutors who served in the District of Connecticut. Among them are
three former U.S. Attorneys.
These former prosecutors praised Judge Merriam as a ``highly
qualified and competent jurist'' who ``applies the law fairly and
properly without regard to personal preference.''
They concluded with their assurance that Judge Merriam ``will serve
with distinction and honor'' in the District of Connecticut.
Judge Merriam was unanimously rated ``Well Qualified'' by the
American Bar Association.
She has the strong support of her home State Senators--Senators
Blumenthal and Murphy--and she received bipartisan support in the
Judiciary Committee, with Senators Tillis and Graham joining the
Democratic members in supporting her nomination.
I urge my colleagues to join me voting in support of Judge Merriam's
nomination.

Vote on Merriam Nomination

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the Merriam nomination?
Mr. TESTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 409 Ex.]

YEAS--54

NAYS--46

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Under the previous order, the
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and
the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

____________________