[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 194 (Thursday, November 4, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7770-S7777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant 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. 312, Robert Luis Santos, of Texas, 
     to be Director of the Census for a term expiring December 31, 
     2026. (Reappointment).
         Charles E. Schumer, Chris Van Hollen, John Hickenlooper, 
           Brian Schatz, Tina Smith, Jeff Merkley, Tammy 
           Duckworth, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher A. Coons, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Ben Ray Lujan, Christopher Murphy, 
           Martin Heinrich, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Michael F. 
           Bennet, Ron Wyden, Raphael Warnock.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Robert 
Luis Santos, of Texas, to be Director of the Census for a term expiring 
December 31, 2026 (Reappointment), shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Rounds).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 464 Ex.]

                                YEAS--61

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

                                NAYS--36

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cramer
     Rounds
     Warnock
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
36.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                        Build Back Better Agenda

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, over the last year, America's economy has 
faltered and the American people are struggling. Families have been 
confronted with rising inflation, which is essentially a tax on their 
paycheck every time they go to the grocery store, every time they fill 
up the gas tank, and every time they go out and buy clothing or 
essentials for their family. America's small businesses, after 
suffering from the COVID shutdowns last year, are facing supply chain 
issues and labor shortages.
  It is no surprise that the majority of Americans believe our economy 
is in poor health and they fear things are getting worse.
  And the Democrats' answer to the growing economic anxiety?
  Double down on Big Government policies.
  President Biden and Democratic leaders are pursuing a $2 trillion 
tax-and-spending spree that offers Americans more debt, more 
government, more taxes, and more inflation. They think that government 
is the answer to all our problems. This $2 trillion bill is an attempt 
to fundamentally transform from an opportunity-driven society built on 
the American dream to a dependency-driven society powered by the 
Federal Government.
  The Biden administration put a lot of work into trying to market 
their plan--their tax-and-spending spree. They claim it will bring down 
costs and help the middle class.
  But what are their top priorities?
  Tax cuts for their wealthy donors in New York and California and 
other blue States that have State and local taxes, giving them a 
deduction on those taxes imposed by State legislatures and Democratic 
Governors. They want to raise the SALT tax from $10,000 to $72,000, a 
move that mainly benefits wealthy Americans.
  Ninety-seven percent of the tax cuts would go to Americans making 
more than $100,000 a year. Millionaires would get a $23,000 tax cut. 
And, as Democrats' rich donors get richer, middle-class families get 
poorer.
  Although Democrats are touting their childcare cost entitlement 
program, the devil really is in the details. While a single parent 
stands to receive thousands of dollars in childcare payments, married 
parents at the same income level would receive no assistance at all.
  Once the regulations in the bill are factored in, the cost of 
unsubsidized childcare will skyrocket. Millions of middle-class 
families won't get subsidies because they make more than $67,000 a 
year, and they will be on the hook for the rising costs of healthcare 
that their proposal will create. According to one analysis, parents 
making more than $67,000 a year can see their childcare costs skyrocket 
by more than $13,000 in the first year of the program.
  How many middle-class families can afford that?
  Democrats also want to meddle with our Nation's economy under the 
guise of promising that they just want to combat climate change.
  The Democrats are proposing a new electric vehicle tax credit, which 
would subsidize high-cost electric vehicles for affluent Americans who 
can already afford them. To make matters worse, Democrats are offering 
a second tax credit only if you purchase an electric vehicle 
constructed by their Big Labor union allies. That's right, a car built 
in a non-union shop doesn't get the tax subsidy; a car built in a union 
shop does.
  Look, I support clean energy, and I have got a record of supporting 
it here in the Senate and back in my time at the House of 
Representatives in North Carolina, but I don't support having the 
Federal Government unfairly pick winners and losers in the private 
markets.
  Democrats also hope to create a Civilian Climate Corps to give young 
liberal activists paid jobs--jobs paid by the American taxpayer. That 
is an outrageous concept, considering that we already have a record 
number of jobs that private employers can't fill. The government is 
going to create jobs to compete with these businesses that are 
desperately looking for labor.
  But this isn't about jobs. It is about the socialist wing of the 
Democratic Party having their own army of government-funded social 
justice warriors. It is no surprise that the Civilian Climate Corps is 
championed by the radical and anti-Semitic Sunrise Movement. Their 
activists have protested climate policy in the past by blocking traffic 
during rush hour and chaining themselves to boats. They also frequently 
go to homes of elected officials--including me, just back in August--to 
trespass on property and to

[[Page S7771]]

harass and intimidate us into supporting their extreme socialist 
demands. These activists would be at the top of the list to get 
taxpayer-funded jobs in the Civilian Climate Corps. And by their own 
admission, progressives see it expanding well beyond the scope of 
climate change to anything the left considers social justice.
  These are just some of the provisions in the Democrats' Big 
Government spending spree.
  The next logical question is, how do they intend to pay for it?
  They will do it by raising taxes, shaking down the middle class, and 
adding more to our debt.
  They have proposed doubling the size of the IRS. The IRS already has 
83- to 85,000 people. They are proposing hiring another 80,000 people, 
doubling the size of the IRS. Democrats want to expand the size of the 
IRS in order to monitor bank accounts of hard-working Americans in the 
hopes of squeezing more money out of them.
  While millionaires and billionaires have tax lawyers and accountants 
to handle an IRS inquiry, hard-working, middle-class Americans don't. 
And there is nothing more chilling than getting a call from the IRS or 
a letter saying that you are about to be audited or ``We just have a 
few questions for you.'' They are going to have to take on the IRS 
themselves when they get accused of not paying enough.
  My friend, the Senator from West Virginia, has spoken out against the 
plan to double the size and scope of the IRS, and I agree with him. He 
has also warned Democrats on the dangers of creating massive new 
spending programs at the same time that Social Security and Medicare 
are on the verge of bankruptcy.
  Focus group-approved slogans and new promises the government can't 
keep might be good politics for Democrats, but it is horrible policy 
for Americans. Americans can't afford more inflation, more taxes, more 
childcare costs, and more government. The Democrats' tax-and-spending 
spree won't Build Back Better; it will only make life harder for 
Americans already struggling to get by.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my friend from North Carolina expressed 
his point of view. I would like to express mine.
  Do you think that those who are making incomes in America in the 
highest levels should pay their fair share of taxes?
  I do.
  Do you think that those who get the tax break from the Trump tax plan 
of 4 years ago, which added $2 trillion to our deficit, should pay more 
in taxes?
  I do.
  Do you think we should help families who are struggling with the cost 
of living to defray those costs, for example, for daycare?
  Well, I do; and I can tell you from my family experience, so do my 
kids.
  What do you think about the possibility of starting kids in school, a 
possibility at 3 years of age or 4 years of age, if that is a parent's 
choice? Is that a good idea?
  I think it is. And so do educators.
  If kids get a flying start at education, they have a much more likely 
chance to succeed and to graduate and to progress to a point in life 
where they are making a living and more. That is part of it.
  So do you support, as I do, cutting the rate of childhood poverty in 
the United States in half?
  I think we ought to at least do that, maybe even more.
  If your answer was yes to these questions, what I describe is the 
mechanism which we have taken into the reconciliation process. It is a 
long Senate word for a bill that we are going to consider in about 10 
days to 2 weeks. What we are trying to do is to alleviate and reduce 
the costs that families face.
  It is a legitimate question raised by the Senator from North 
Carolina: Well, who is going to pay for this?
  It is paid for by people in the highest income categories. If you are 
making less than $400,000 a year, your taxes will not go up. That is 
what Biden said in the campaign, and that is the standard we have been 
governed by. For those who are not paying their fair share of taxes, 
they may have to.
  And I am not nervous about putting more auditors in the IRS to look 
at how much taxes people pay because I know what the numbers are. 
Working families, particularly those who have withholding, are paying 
their fair share within a few percentage points; but at the highest 
income level, these folks are finding ways to avoid their taxes. So 
working families are paying their fair share and the wealthiest 
Americans--some of them--are not. So these new IRS auditors will make 
sure everybody pays their fair share.
  How is that for a starting point?
  You shouldn't be afraid of hiring more cops on the beat if you are 
not violating the law, and that, I think, is a reality that most of us 
realize in life.
  In terms of other payments, corporations that have profited, 
declaring millions of dollars in booked gains and profits, don't you 
think they ought to pay something?
  I sure do. There ought to be a minimum tax that these corporations 
pay if they are profitable beyond certain million-dollar ranges. That 
is reasonable to me. Average Americans are paying their fair share. 
Small businesses are paying their fair share, but some of these folks 
have found ways to avoid these taxes. I think we ought to look into 
that.
  What is the goal here?
  The goal here isn't socialism, however the Senator wishes to define 
it. The goal is to have the government give families--working families 
in particular--a helping hand by reducing the cost of daycare, by 
making more education available, by providing a childcare tax credit to 
some of these families, by providing home health services for their 
parents and grandparents who need a helping hand.
  Now there is a very popular idea, because a lot of folks who are 
raising small children also have to worry about grandma and grandpa and 
how they are doing. Are they in place where they feel safe and secure 
and taken care of? Or if they can stay home, that is even better. That 
is what this bill does.
  The reconciliation bill provides additional assistance for those 
people who want to live in the independence of their home to have home 
healthcare services. I can't think of a better income than if that is 
part of what they do, and it involves government getting into the 
picture. For some of my colleagues, that is reprehensible--that is just 
pure socialism.
  But I might remind those who are following my remarks, when Social 
Security was created to give fiscal solvency to families once retired, 
it was branded as communism or socialism. Then came the idea of 
Medicare, health insurance for seniors in America in the 1960s.
  Do you know what the American Medical Association called it?
  Socialized medicine or socialism. Every time the government steps in 
to solve a problem which the economy can't solve by itself, the critics 
will always say it is socialism; it is too much government.
  Well, we have got to take care that the amount of government we give 
to this country is adequate to meet the needs of these families who are 
struggling with the cost of living today. I believe these are steps in 
the right diction.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. DURBIN. How does going zero to 60 in 3 seconds sound to you? How 
about traversing through terrains of unimaginable challenge? Or having 
an entire kitchen stowed away in your car wherever you go?
  These are just a few of the innovations being pioneered by the minds 
of Rivian, the company that is leading the electric vehicle revolution 
in my home State of Illinois.
  The company recently released the R1T, which ``Motor Trend'' has 
described as ``the most remarkable pickup we've ever driven.''
  That truck won't be built in China and it won't be built in Europe. 
It will be built in the heart of Illinois, in a town aptly named 
Normal.
  The story of Normal is a story of revival and opportunity. Six years 
ago, a local Mitsubishi plant shut down, leaving thousands of workers 
unemployed. Today, that once shuttered factory has sprung back to life, 
manufacturing the first mass-produced electric truck in America. And 
even better, lawmakers in Illinois are now positioning Normal to 
continue leading the industry.
  Earlier this year, the State of Illinois provided more than $7 
million to a

[[Page S7772]]

community college in Normal, IL, to launch a program training electric 
vehicle technicians. Graduates of that program will be fully prepared 
to land good-paying jobs at Rivian or one of the other countries that 
are suppliers in the electric vehicle industry.
  Why is this good news not just for Illinois?
  Each additional Rivian truck on the road will help confront the 
threat of climate change.
  Transportation accounts for more than a fourth--let me repeat that--
more than a fourth of total greenhouse gas emissions. If every vehicle 
on the road were electric, we would probably be on our way to a green 
future. What is happening in Normal proves that investing in 
sustainable innovation drives sustainable economic growth for everyone, 
and it is a look into the future that Democrats envision under the 
Build Back Better agenda, a future in which every American can gain the 
skills they need to be competitive in the 21st century and American 
innovators have the incentives they need to pioneer new technology.


                       Climate Change Conference

  Madam President, the story of Normal's revival will be in the front 
of my mind tomorrow as I depart for the United Nations' 26th Conference 
of Parties climate summit in Glasgow. This gathering is an opportunity 
for the United States and our allies to come together for the first 
time in years around a shared goal: taking bold steps to address the 
climate crisis.
  One of those steps is the Build Back Better World Partnership, an 
initiative that will bring together the world's major democracies to 
support sustainable development in low- and middle-income countries. 
This partnership will help counter China's rising influence in the 
world by equipping developing nations with the resources they need to 
grow their economies without relying on fossil fuels.
  On the note of China, Xi Jinping's absence from the COP conference in 
Scotland should be an alarm bell for the international community. China 
is the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. They emit 
more than every other developed nation combined. And the country is 
headed in the wrong direction. Over the next decade, the Chinese 
Communist Party plans to build dozens of new coal plants throughout the 
country.
  China's leaders insist they are committed to addressing climate 
change, but the commitments they have made are inadequate. Carbon 
neutrality by 2060 is too little, too late.
  Fortunately, over the past 2 weeks, President Biden has shown the 
world that if you want a partner in saving the planet, follow America's 
lead; work together, across borders. Already, the strategy is working. 
Yesterday, a coalition of more than 40 countries, including the United 
Kingdom, Poland, and Vietnam, announced they will phase out coal power 
over the next two decades.
  There is no doubt that the international commitments we agreed to in 
Glasgow are crucial to combating climate change, but the question I 
hope to ask our foreign allies is, What will you do the moment you 
return home?
  Climate change isn't a faraway threat. The extreme weather events 
over the past year have shown it is already here. Over the summer, one 
storm alone, Hurricane Ida, caused $100 billion in damages--one storm, 
$100 billion--twice as much as Democrats have proposed to spend each 
year to reduce the harm of climate change. And these costs are only 
getting worse.
  Last month, our Nation's intelligence community released a landmark 
national intelligence estimate on climate change. The report 
illustrated how a changing climate is one of the biggest threats to 
national security and economic stability. It warns that over the next 
two decades, climate change will increase global poverty and 
instability and could lead to conflicts and wars and dwindling supplies 
of food, water, and habitable land. Hundreds of millions of people are 
likely to be displaced by 2050.
  Among the 11 nations at greatest risk of collapse from climate 
stress, by this estimate, 5 are in our own hemisphere, and 2 possess 
nuclear weapons in other places in the world.
  These humanitarian crises could also give rise to anti-democratic 
populists. We have seen it in Hungary. We have seen these same 
politicians rising in France and Germany, peddling fear and xenophobia 
after an influx of refugees.
  The NIE warns us that ``current policies and pledges are 
insufficient'' to meet the goals of the Paris climate conference. That 
is why the question for anyone in a position of power is: What are you 
doing about climate change today?
  Well, between the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the Build Back 
Better package, Democrats are proposing roughly $900 billion toward the 
climate change threat. This would be the largest investment in climate 
action in history.
  These proposals will accelerate our Nation's transition to a clean 
energy future, upgrade our power grid and the rest of our physical 
infrastructure, and establish America as a global leader. This could 
pave the way for every State to attract job creators like Rivian or 
Lion Electric in Joliet, IL, which announced an electric vehicle plant 
earlier this year.
  I heard the previous speaker criticize the idea of a Climate Corps. 
It is modeled, really, after the Conservation Corps of the New Deal 
that goes back at least 80 years. I can't understand why we would 
criticize an effort to put young people to work so that they would have 
jobs that would improve the world we live in, the Nation we live in, 
and make a decent income in the process. For many of the kids, this 
will be their first chance to really understand what life should be 
like. Why wouldn't we want that? I don't know about North Carolina, but 
in Illinois, we can certainly use their good, hard work.
  I got a call yesterday from the president of the Cook County board, 
Toni Preckwinkle, who said we have forest preserves all over Cook 
County--and they are a beauty to behold--but they need basic work. If 
the Climate Corps members can do it, we want to hire them locally and 
engage them in that process and give them a good life experience.
  What could be wrong with that? That these kids, who might otherwise 
not have a chance at a job, get a decent job and get rewarded for their 
good work, with a paycheck when it is all over. For many of us, that 
was a formative experience we are never going to forget. There are a 
lot of kids who deserve it, and there is a lot to be done by this 
effort.
  I want to say at this point, as I close--I see other Members on the 
floor--that we cannot wait when it comes to climate change. There are 
people who want us to be at the back of the pack, for America to come 
in second, when we are talking about changing the climate for the 
better in this Nation and around the world. I think American leadership 
is needed. It has always been an inspiration to many other countries 
and can be again today.
  I thank the President for his leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). The Senator from Wyoming.
  

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to oppose 
the Biden administration's agenda, which is anti-American energy. That 
is what we are facing in the country today.
  President Biden just got back from a trip to Europe. He went there to 
attend the United Nations' Climate Change Conference. I noted the 
previous speaker said he was jetting off to there this weekend, heading 
to Scotland.
  He also made reference to the Climate Corps, which is part of 
President Biden's agenda. He said: Who could criticize it? Well, I am 
happy to criticize it. That legislation is asking to hire 1 million 
Americans--1 million Americans--to protest, to wage war on oil, gas, 
and coal jobs, energy jobs in this country. This is at a time when we 
have 10 million open jobs in this country and ``Help Wanted'' signs all 
around my State and the States of all the Members on the floor today. 
Yet the Biden administration's answer to rising energy costs is to hire 
a million people to protest American energy and American jobs as the 
prices continue to go up and inflation continues to ravage the 
paychecks of the American people.
  So, yes, they are flying off to Scotland, so many of the Members on 
that side of the aisle. The Democrats have joined John Kerry. Nancy 
Pelosi is heading there. Many in this body from the Democratic side of 
the aisle will be

[[Page S7773]]

joining them, heading there soon. Well, back at home, people are 
struggling with inflation that is at a 30-year high as a result of the 
policies of this administration.
  One in five American families has cut their spending this year. Why? 
To pay for the energy bills that are being brought forth by the 
policies of this administration, which is anti-American energy.
  The cost of a gallon of gasoline has gone up a dollar a gallon since 
President Biden has come into office. It means the cost of everything 
else is up as well because higher prices aren't just prices you pay at 
the pump; they are prices you pay at the grocery store.
  At the same time, the cost of natural gas has doubled, and it is now 
at a point where it is at the highest price it has been in 7 years. 
Half of the homes in this country are heated with natural gas. Winter 
is coming, and it is going to get worse.
  This leaves less money in people's paychecks. They pay so much to 
fill up, so much to heat their home, there is less money for their 
family. That is why the New York Times' front page story last week 
talked about Thanksgiving and the cost of walloping the wallet of 
American families. People are soon going to have to decide whether they 
will have the money to heat or to eat.
  That is what we are facing as a result of the agenda of this 
administration. So what is the President doing about it? Well, he went 
to Europe, and, astonishingly, he apologized to the world for America. 
He made unrealistic pledges to cut emissions. He said he was going to 
cut 1 billion tons in the next 8 years and went so far as to say the 
United States would reach zero emissions in 28 years. That would be a 
most dramatic change in the history of the American economy. It is a 
reckless promise. Yet the President did get the applause from the 
global elite. Well, the American people aren't applauding. The American 
people are wringing their hands today.
  The average European doesn't have reason to applaud either. Joe Biden 
left out a few important facts in his speech in Europe. He forgot to 
mention he had given Vladimir Putin the green light to build the Nord 
Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. He failed to mention that Putin can 
now hold half of Europe hostage with natural gas. He failed to mention 
that today--today--in America, we are using more oil from Vladimir 
Putin's Russia than we are from the State of Alaska.
  Listen to this, Senators from Alaska, who follow these figures every 
day. The President failed to mention that he is actually asking 
Vladimir Putin to sell more oil to the United States, pump more oil, 
because he doesn't want it produced in the United States, and he is 
willing to kill American jobs in the process.
  Well, due to the policies of this President and his radical attacks 
on American energy, Vladimir Putin has hit the jackpot, and he is going 
to cash in for years to come.
  Working families all across Europe know better. They have seen this 
movie before. That is why, this morning, I have released a report. I 
have it here. It is called ``Europe's Energy Crisis: A Warning to 
America.'' The subheadline: ``Democrat plans to mimic Europe's energy 
and climate policies will lead to sky-high prices, less reliability, 
and shortages.''
  That is where President Biden is leading the United States. It is no 
wonder that the national poll released last Sunday by NBC News showed 
only 22 percent of the American people believe the country is heading 
in the right direction under the Democrats and under this President.
  This report details how Europe has tried many of the environmental 
policies that the Democrats are proposing and want to pass today. The 
consequences have been devastating to families there and will be 
devastating to families here.
  Because of the policies, Europeans are paying some of the highest 
energy prices in the world, and much of the energy they use is 
undependable and unreliable.
  Prices are really high in America right now, but they are even higher 
in Europe. This spring, gasoline prices were at least 65 percent higher 
in Europe than they were in America. From 2005 to 2020, the cost of 
energy in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom 
increased between 28 and 71 percent, depending on the country.
  European industries pay at least 90 percent more for natural gas than 
American industries do. This is a major competitive advantage for 
American companies. Yet President Biden is doing everything he can to 
throw our competitive advantage away.
  This President is trying to pass legislation that will make it worse 
here at home. The largest piece of the President's spending bill is 
over $500 billion for the heavily criticized Green New Deal. It 
includes high payoffs for electric vehicle owners and an army of full-
time climate activists that I just talked about. It includes higher 
taxes on American energy and higher prices for consumers. It would ban 
exploration for oil and gas off our shores and in the Arctic. All of 
these ideas will raise costs additionally for working families.
  My new report shows that Europe already tried the Democrats' 
environmental policies. The results were disastrous for Europe. They 
will be disastrous here.
  I urge my Democratic colleagues: Don't make this same mistake. Don't 
subject the people of the United States to the same punishing pain of 
the high cost of energy that people are sustaining right now in Europe. 
Stop raising prices. Stop making life harder. The American people and 
American producers and American families deserve better.
  I yield the floor.
  

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                          Biden Administration

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, when we looked at the news this morning 
and we saw the evening news last night, when we tune in to the cable 
channels and we hear the radio, we see the astounding news of the 
voices of the voters on Tuesday of this week not just in Virginia and 
not just in New Jersey, but in the State of New York and throughout the 
Midwest and on over to the west coast.
  The American people sent a strong message of disapproval to the Biden 
administration this week, and I hope our Democratic friends and the 
Biden administration will heed the message of the voters.
  I normally don't bring the New York Times to the floor and quote it 
with approval, but it says here in the New York Times this morning: 
``Bruised at Polls, Democrats Look at Their Missteps.''
  I hope that is true. I hope our Democratic colleagues and our friends 
in the Biden administration are looking at their missteps because they 
are many and they have been harmful.
  The Washington Post this morning, November 4, said: ``A sharp turn 
looms in Virginia.''
  Yes, Virginia went from the three constitutional statewide offices 
all being held by Democrats to a Republican sweep, not only there but 
in the State General Assembly.
  But then I see this other headline at the top of the page: 
``Democrats race ahead on fiscal proposals.''
  Presumably, our Democrat friends are not hearing the message that the 
American people in State after State after State sent just Tuesday of 
this week.
  Even vastly underfunded GOP candidates, like the candidate for 
Governor in New Jersey, came within a hair's breadth of being elected. 
Vastly underfunded GOP candidates for legislative positions actually 
prevailed over candidates with millions and millions of dollars on the 
Democratic side.
  The American people have sent this administration and this Democratic 
majority in the House and this tiny Democratic majority in the Senate a 
very unmistakable message. They are rejecting the malaise that we are 
under. And the Biden administration must understand that this election 
was the direct result of the President's failed agenda.
  By all measures, our economy should be roaring by now. We are coming 
out of the pandemic. We should be back to the good news of February 
2020, the month before the pandemic hit. The Trump and Republican tax 
cuts were in place. The unemployment rate was an astoundingly low 3.6 
percent, something that we were told in our economics classes was 
impossible in the United

[[Page S7774]]

States of America. When I was taking kiddy economics, they said it 
couldn't go below 4 percent.
  The unemployment rate in February of 2020 was 3.6 percent. Employment 
was up among women. Employment was up among minorities. Employment was 
up among veterans. Our economy was roaring.
  And then the pandemic came, and we acted in a bipartisan way. But we 
are coming out of the pandemic now, and the administration acts as if 
we need a huge dose--$4 trillion, $5 trillion worth--of socialism.
  The pandemic is in full retreat, and from the beginning of the 
administration this year, the Biden administration blew it. On day one, 
the President canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, killing thousands of 
jobs, and almost in the same breath, he told the Russians to go ahead 
with their pipeline.
  I mean, can Americans even grasp that?
  I think they sent a message Tuesday about that sort of thing.
  With the stroke of a pen, the President declared war on American 
energy. The result has been that fuel has become scarce, and, of 
course, because of its scarcity, it has become more expensive. After 4 
years of relief under the last administration, U.S. energy producers 
are once again looking down the barrel of a hostile EPA.
  This is a self-inflicted energy crisis. Coal and nuclear plants are 
shutting down as reliable natural resources are taken off the table, 
replaced by its administration's fantasy dream of green-only energy.
  Taxpayers are being told to stomach higher gas prices while, at the 
same time, being asked to pay billions of dollars to subsidize wind, 
solar, and electric vehicles. There is a place for that, but they are 
all three unreliable. And, predictably, gas prices have soared.
  Instead of reevaluating his own policies, it seems that the President 
is attempting to double down on them, and he has even gone to 
questionable governments across the sea in the Middle East asking them 
to produce more oil because we won't do that in the United States. It 
makes no sense at all.
  Perhaps this administration should listen to the election results and 
hear the voices of the people from Tuesday.
  But the economic damage is hardly limited to energy. Inflation 
spurred on by the administration's reckless spending is burning a hole 
in the wallets of Americans, and we simply can't get around it. The 
Consumer Price Index shows one thing, that prices have gone up 5.4 
percent over the last 12 months.
  Well, I will tell you, Madam President, I was speaking to a 
manufacturer from my home State of Mississippi just yesterday, and he 
said that figure is understated quite a bit. He said his costs have 
gone up around 20 percent in being able to manufacture goods for 
American people and hire Americans and hire Mississippians.
  Meanwhile, the gears of our economy are slowing down, causing fears 
of stagflation, something we have not seen since the 1970s.
  And I do want to agree with my friend from Wyoming about the 
gentleman from Illinois' point about the Climate Corps. This 
manufacturer in Mississippi said he has got 2,000 positions that need 
to be filled. Perhaps some of these people that the Senator from 
Illinois would like to employ in the Climate Corps can come to 
manufacturers like ours in Mississippi and take a good-paying job 
manufacturing things for Americans that we can sell in our country and 
all around the world.
  GDP growth just slowed to 2 percent. Employers still cannot find 
enough workers, just like the manufacturer from Mississippi told me 
yesterday. Our supply chain is jammed up with endless delays, causing 
concern.
  But, to me, one of the most serious and dangerous policies of this 
administration is the Biden administration's unprecedented and 
unconstitutional vaccine mandate on two-thirds of the private-sector 
workforce. We are being told that every employer with over 100 
employees must comply with a Washington-mandated and unconstitutional 
vaccine mandate.
  This is exactly what the President said 11 months ago he didn't want 
to do. Joe Biden was asked in December of 2020: Should vaccines be 
mandated?
  And he said: ``No, I don't think they should be mandatory.''
  The President was right when he said that to the press, and he is 180 
degrees wrong
   today and taking his cues from the most radical advisers that he 
has. As a result, the American people, on Tuesday, have said: Enough.

  Now, I know a little about American workers. I know a little about 
American service men and women. I was one. We have been raised in a 
free country, in a free land, and we are not accustomed to being told 
by Washington, DC, by the Chief Executive of the United States of 
America, what we must put in our bodies.
  And I can tell you, this is a looming economic crisis for this 
country. Millions and millions of hard-working American taxpayers are 
going to be forced to leave their jobs because they will refuse, as 
free Americans, to be told that they must take a vaccine that they do 
not feel good about.
  Madam President, the Chief Executive of our land has grossly 
miscalculated the American people on this issue, and a looming economic 
crisis because of a lack of workers and mass layoffs and mass firings 
is about to occur.
  The Biden administration should pause, do what the New York Times 
said this morning and, as they are examining their bruises, look at 
their missteps because they are many and they are hurting the American 
economy.
  I would urge the Biden administration to let these tax cuts stay in 
place, to let these soft-touch regulations stay in place, to pause and 
listen to the clear voices of the American people as they voted in 
strong numbers this past Tuesday.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                      Nomination of Saule Omarova

  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, on Tuesday, the President of the United 
States officially nominated Cornell Law Professor Saule Omarova to be 
America's top banking regulator. She would be the Comptroller of the 
Currency. The Comptroller of the Currency is the lead regulator of all 
of our national banks.
  Now, twice before today, I addressed her nomination on the Senate 
floor--her then-prospective nomination. Now she has been nominated. And 
I noted that Professor Omarova describes her own views as radical. For 
example, Professor Omarova has written that she wants to ``radically 
redefine the role of a central bank.'' She has also stated that her 
proposals represent a ``radical departure from what we've been 
conditioned to view as the `normal' state of play.''
  Madam President, probably the only thing I can think of in all of her 
writing that I agree with is her characterization of her views as 
radical. Specifically, let me be clear about what is radical about her 
whole approach. It is radical because she has a clear and obvious 
aversion to democratic capitalism itself, in other words, the central 
organizing principle of American society that we would be a free 
society and that that would include economic freedom and economic 
decisions can be made by free men and women pursuing their own 
understanding of their self-interest.
  Instead of that, she has a clear preference for an administrative 
approach where decisions are not made by free men and women engaging 
voluntarily in exchanges but, rather, by technocrats who are deemed to 
know what is better for us than we could possibly know for ourselves.
  The fact is, in my 11 years in Congress, I don't think I have seen a 
more radical nominee for any regulatory spot in our entire Federal 
Government. And I know that is a bold statement, but I stand by that.
  Now, last month, I spoke about Professor Omarova's radical plan to 
have the Federal Government set prices throughout our economy. She 
wants the government to decide what people should pay for food and gas 
and wages and home prices and many other things. That is pretty 
radical.
  Today, I want to focus on her radical proposal to nationalize the 
U.S. banking system. So let me first start by observing that Professor 
Omarova's plan to nationalize our financial system wasn't something 
that she wrote decades ago or even years ago. In fact, I believe she 
wrote it last year, and it was published in the Vanderbilt Law Review 
just last month.

[[Page S7775]]

  Professor Omarova's radical plan to nationalize financial services 
was published just last month, and the paper was titled ``The People's 
Ledger: How to Democratize Money and Finance the Economy.''
  ``The People's Ledger.'' Not the people's Republic, mind you, but 
``The People's Ledger.'' That is her title for the paper.
  In the paper, Professor Omarova outlined her plan to ``effectively 
end banking as we know it.''
  Now, that is a very strong statement. So what exactly does she mean 
by this?
  Well, she lays this out for us.
  In her proposal, the Federal Government would become the retail bank 
for every American. That is right. It has essentially two features. She 
would have the creation of retail deposit accounts at the Fed for every 
American citizen and the issuance of a central bank digital currency to 
manage this in various ways.
  The objective of this plan--these are her words--the objective is to 
``reimagine the role of a central bank as the ultimate public platform 
for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a 
modern economy.'' Think about that. We want the central government to 
be allocating financial resources in a modern economy. Those are not my 
words; those are her words.
  In its role as the ``ultimate public platform,'' according to 
Professor Omarova, ``central bank accounts [would] fully replace--
rather than uneasily co-exist with--private bank deposits.'' These are 
her words. She wants to fully replace all of the private accounts that 
we have. So, in other words, if you have a bank account with a local 
community bank, no more; couldn't have that uneasily--what is her 
word?--uneasily coexisting. That would be replaced. Your money would be 
with the Federal Reserve instead.
  So Professor Omarova's view is to put the Fed in charge of handling 
all of our bank deposits, all of our bank accounts. So when a hard-
working American receives their paycheck every week, it doesn't go in 
direct deposit to the community bank with which you are accustomed to 
doing business; it would go to a government-controlled bank account 
with the Fed.
  Professor Omarova's proposal would ``envision the complete migration 
of demand deposit accounts to the Fed's balance sheet.'' So lest anyone 
suggest I am exaggerating about her plan to replace all banking, these 
are her words: ``the complete migration of demand deposit accounts to 
the Fed's balance sheet.''
  Now, why does Professor Omarova propose that we destroy banking in 
America and shift all deposit accounts from the innumerable private 
institutions that we all use and do it all through the Fed? Well, one 
reason she cites is to empower the Fed to directly distribute fiscal 
stimulus and aid to worthy beneficiaries. I kind of wonder who the 
radical left would consider to be sufficiently worthy to be a 
beneficiary, but that is another whole topic.
  Another justification that she offers for the Fed to control all 
retail banking--really, for Fed to be America's sole retail bank--is so 
that the Fed can more easily control the money supply.
  This is very interesting. She provides a little insight into how she 
envisions this because she says this would include ``implementing a 
contractionary monetary policy by debiting'' consumers' accounts. Now, 
she allows that this could ``be perceived as the government `taking 
away' people's money.'' Why would people perceive it as the government 
taking away people's money? Because that is exactly what she is saying 
should be an option available to the Fed.
  So specifically what she is saying is that all Americans' deposits 
must be at the Fed. There can be no private banks. That would be an 
uneasy coexistence we shouldn't tolerate. And then, if the Fed causes 
inflation, which is the usual source of inflation, no problem--the Fed 
can solve the problem by confiscating a little bit of the money from 
everybody's accounts.
  Imagine this. That is exactly what she is advocating. The Fed can 
create inflation, but that is all right--we will give it a new tool to 
solve the inflation problem: just confiscate the money from the 
American citizens who are forced to put their money with the Fed. You 
can't make this stuff up. This is what she is advocating.
  That is not the only reason she wants the Fed to be everyone's bank. 
She says it is to ``maximize [the Fed's] capacity to channel credit to 
productive uses in the nation's economy.'' This is the definition of 
``socialist hubris.'' This is the definition of ``socialism''--the idea 
that we have the government allocate the resources. Let the government 
decide what is the productive way to use the resources of our society 
rather than individual men and women by virtue of the exchanges they 
voluntarily choose to engage in. She wants to substitute a centrally 
managed, planned socialist economy for the free society that we have 
today. There is no other way to characterize it.
  Where has this ever worked? This is unbelievable. If it were 
possible, which it is not, how would the Fed decide which are the 
productive and the nonproductive uses? What about loans to energy 
companies? Gee, I don't know. Is that productive or is that not 
productive? Let's leave to it the Fed to decide. What could possibly go 
wrong?
  Here is another reason why it is very bad to force all Americans to 
do their retail banking with a central government. It is the end to 
privacy for Americans' financial transactions. That is over.
  We remember just weeks ago the tremendous backlash against the idea 
that banks would be required to report aggregate transaction 
information to the IRS. I know I got buried with phone calls and 
letters. I think we had 16,000 Pennsylvanians who reached out to my 
office alone, urging Congress to reject that proposal. Can you imagine 
what people will think of Professor Omarova's plan to force you to have 
your whole bank account with the Fed?
  Americans don't want the Federal Government monitoring their bank 
accounts. I should think that would be obvious. They certainly don't 
want the Federal Government having control over this.
  Let me conclude with this: It is perfectly OK for academic 
institutions and think tanks to have people espousing these socialist 
ideas and spinning all different variations on these collectivists and 
centrally planned and socialist themes. It is perfectly fine. That 
should be debated. I am not in the camp that thinks you cancel someone 
who has a different point of view from being able to articulate what 
they believe in. But the idea that we would take someone who holds 
these socialist views, who is so strongly anti-capitalism, and put that 
person as the chief regulator of America's banks--that makes no sense 
at all.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3170

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have introduced 12 bills against President 
Biden's vaccine mandate. Most of these bills should have been supremely 
noncontroversial. Some of the bills would have made sure that the 
exemptions President Biden announced were actually efficacious in the 
final mandate. Another bill would have made sure that the government 
didn't vaccinate children without the consent of their parents. Yet 
another would have provided transparency to the American people on 
exactly how their tax dollars are being used in this area.
  Lamentably, each time I asked that one of these bills pass this body, 
one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected. They 
determined that legislation protecting religious, medical, and moral 
exceptions to the mandate were not helpful. They decided that the 
American people do not deserve to understand how their tax dollars are 
funding research or COVID relief. They declared that laws protecting 
parents' rights to make the best decisions for their kids were somehow 
unnecessary.
  On each of these issues, the American people, of course, begged 
significantly to differ. Americans don't appreciate it when their 
government takes decisions out of their hands. As elections this week 
showed, parents want a voice in their children's education, and they 
certainly want to be respected when it comes to medical decisions 
involving and affecting their children as directly as this one does.
  Crippling inflation and polling data on Americans' economic outlook 
show

[[Page S7776]]

that people want government to be more responsible and more transparent 
in how it oversees their tax dollars and how it spends them. Those on 
the other side of the aisle who have objected perhaps aren't getting 
that particular message. And how tragic that is.
  I have heard from hundreds of Utahns in recent days who are at risk 
of losing their livelihoods under the mandate. Many of these 
individuals are military servicemembers and first responders. Others 
are key workers. Many have legitimate medical or religious reasons not 
to be vaccinated. But each one of them is an everyday American. These 
are mothers and fathers. They live in our communities. They are people 
we call friends and neighbors. In today's economy, all too many of them 
are struggling just to get by. Forcing them out of work will put an 
unimaginable strain on their families and on our economy at a time when 
they can't afford to face additional strains, certainly not one imposed 
by the Federal Government.
  Additionally, I have heard from countless businesses that are worried 
about keeping their doors open should the mandate require them to fire 
key members of their workforce, that this just isn't tolerable. These 
businesses are already under tremendous strain due to the supply chain 
crisis and inflation and the labor shortage. They fear that they will 
be unable to operate should the mandate take effect. Every American--
every single American--would suffer if these key industries were to 
shut down.
  Now, some might say these impacts are far away. Others still might 
claim that because the mandate has not yet taken effect, these impacts 
aren't real or worth worrying about today. I don't think that is true. 
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
  Now, it is true that President Biden's vaccine mandate is yet to be 
officially published in the Federal Register. However, it will be 
tomorrow. The unpublished version of the mandate can now be found, as 
of a few hours ago, and here is some of what it entails:
  If employers have 100 or more employees, they must ensure that their 
workers are either fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by December 5 or 
that workers test negative for COVID at least once a week by January 4. 
If an employer has an employee who has yet to be vaccinated, President 
Biden is requiring the employer to pay workers for the time it takes to 
get vaccinated and provide sick leave for workers to recover from any 
side effects.
  What happens if businesses don't comply? Well, President Biden has 
threatened them with a nearly $14,000 fine per violation, per person, 
per day. This is an administrative nightmare and nothing short of it.
  If employees don't want to be vaccinated against COVID-19, then they 
must pay for the testing. American workers will be on the hook, and it 
is not something most Americans can afford.
  Mr. President, seeing that we have a vote approaching, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Peters and I be able to speak for a 
period of time not to exceed an additional 5 minutes to complete our 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEE. So today I am offering a bill that would help with this 
situation. My No Forced Vaccination for COVID-19 Act would prevent the 
President of the United States or any executive branch agency from 
issuing a general vaccine mandate, including a mandate that requires an 
individual to be vaccinated or undergo periodic testing. It would end 
this extraordinary nightmare for millions of Americans and key 
businesses. It would put this sorry, mean, cruel saga to an end.
  The people of Utah and the United States will rest easy if this bill 
passes. We would be able to focus on encouraging vaccination in 
reasonable, acceptable, and constitutional ways. I think this is what 
we all want.
  Ultimately, I believe in these vaccines. I am fully vaccinated. I 
have encouraged everyone around me to be vaccinated. I believe these 
vaccines are helping to protect millions of Americans from the harms of 
COVID. What is not helping Americans is President Biden's mandate. We 
can fix that today. That is why I am encouraging my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  To that end, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. 3170, which is at the desk. I ask further that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PETERS. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Objection is heard.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  This bill would be a step backwards in our country's fight against 
the COVID-19 pandemic.
  Across this country, we have seen over 45 million cases of COVID-19 
and almost 750,000 deaths. Communities--and particularly communities of 
color--have been hit hard by this virus.
  But, luckily, we have a safe and effective way to help prevent the 
spread of the virus: vaccines.
  So far, almost 60 percent of U.S. population has been fully 
vaccinated. However, the virus continues to spread. The Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention classified over 70 percent of our 
counties are having high transmission rates. Conversely, less than 2 
percent are classified as low transmission. In order for us to beat 
this virus, we need to reach higher levels of vaccine rates and put a 
stop to community spread.
  This bill would bar executive agencies from being able to mandate 
that individuals receive the COVID-19 vaccine or even mandate that an 
individual agree to undergo periodic testing for COVID-19 in lieu of a 
vaccine.
  The science is clear: Vaccines are safe, they are effective, and they 
save lives.
  Rather than wasting time on partisan bills that make our country less 
safe, we should be finding ways to ensure an equitable recovery for all 
of our communities and preparing for the next public health emergency.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this isn't about whether we are against the 
virus; we are. It is not about whether we are for the vaccine; we are. 
It is about the fact that only 14 percent of Americans believe that it 
is fair, just, and proper to fire someone because they refuse to get 
the vaccine.
  It is not appropriate for the President of the United States or this 
government to be ordering everyone to be fired, removing someone from 
their ability to put bread on the table for their children. It is 
immoral. It is wrong. It is without foundation and law. It is contrary 
to the constitutional word. This is shameful. I will be back and I 
won't stop until we are finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                    Nomination of Robert Luis Santos

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Robert L. Santos to be the Director of the Census Bureau.
  Mr. Santos is uniquely qualified to lead the Census Bureau as it 
carries out its important work serving as the leading source of quality 
data about the Nation's people and economy. He brings over 40 years of 
experience in both the public and private sectors as a manager and 
expert in the field of survey design and statistical research.
  Throughout his career, Mr. Santos has interacted closely with the 
Census Bureau as a researcher, a stakeholder, and an expert adviser, 
serving on the Census Advisory Committee and National Academies panels 
on Federal statistics. He has a deep understanding of the Census 
Bureau, its data, and its stakeholders.
  Throughout the nomination process, Mr. Santos has demonstrated a firm 
commitment to upholding the Bureau's mission of producing the essential 
high-quality data that our communities, our businesses, and people all 
across our Nation rely on.
  As the Census Bureau completes the 2020 census, plans for the 2030 
census, and administers the Bureau's crucial demographic surveys, it is 
absolutely critical for the Agency to have a qualified Senate-confirmed 
leader at the helm.
  I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the confirmation 
of

[[Page S7777]]

Robert Santos as Census Bureau Director.


                       Vote on Santos Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the Santos nomination?
  Mr. PETERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 465 Ex.]

                                YEAS--58

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

                                NAYS--35

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Burr
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Johnson
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Warnock
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen).
  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 action.
  The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________