[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

     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
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                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.

                          ____________________