[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 193 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7107-S7114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Morning business is closed.
                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Dana M. 
Douglas, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth 
Circuit.
  Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


           Recognizing the Syracuse Orange Men's Soccer Team

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to extend a 
massive--massive--congratulations to the Syracuse Orange men's soccer 
team for winning the NCAA College Cup national championship last night 
in a heart-stopping 7-to-6 victory, after penalty kicks. A big congrats 
to Coach McIntyre, all the amazing players, and the staff on a 
phenomenal accomplishment--the first in Syracuse history. Go Orange.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. President, now on the omnibus, a more serious subject, 
negotiations for a yearlong omnibus agreement move forward. There is a 
lot of work left to do, but we are optimistic that if we preserve the 
good faith we have seen so far, we will get there. I remain hopeful 
because despite disagreements about the ultimate package, there is 
little disagreement that an omnibus is by far the best solution for 
funding the government. Still, we are going to need a little more time 
beyond this week to get an omnibus done.
  To avoid a shutdown this Friday, the Senate should be ready to pass a
1-week CR by the end of this week to give negotiators more time to 
finish an agreement by the holidays. The House is set to begin 
consideration of a weeklong CR today, and after all the progress made 
towards an omnibus agreement, I hope nobody here in the Senate stands 
in the way of getting a 
1-week CR passed quickly, through consent if needed.
  Again, an omnibus is the best option--the most responsible option--
for funding the government in the next fiscal year. It will ensure that 
the Federal Government has all the resources necessary to serve the 
public at full capacity. It will make sure our troops in uniform are 
taken care of. And I expect an omnibus will contain priorities both 
sides want to see passed into law, including more funding for Ukraine 
and the Electoral Count Act, which my colleagues in the Rules Committee 
have done great work on. It will be great to get that done.
  After all the work we have done this year to pass important new 
bills, like the PACT Act and the CHIPS and Science Act and so much 
more, a CR into next year could prevent the investment secured in those 
bills from going out the door. The vast majority of us don't want to go 
down that road. So, again, the best option--the most responsible 
option--is to proceed toward an omnibus, even if it won't contain 
everything both sides want.


                     Nomination of Arun Subramanian

  Mr. President, now on judges, later this morning it will be my honor 
to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee to introduce an 
exceptional public servant, Arun Subramanian, whom President Biden 
nominated on my urging to serve as a district judge for the Southern 
District of New York.

[[Page S7108]]

Here on the floor, Arun Subramanian is one of the few South Asians who 
are on the bench--we need more--but he will pave the way. And it is my 
intention to continue to support South Asians to come to the bench.


                     Nomination of Dana M. Douglas

  Mr. President, here on the floor, we will also proceed with the 
confirmation of Dana Douglas to serve as circuit court judge for the 
Fifth District, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
  Judge Douglas's confirmation today will be significant for a few 
reasons. For one, Judge Douglas will be the 28th--the 28th--circuit 
court judge this majority confirms in the last 2 years. Of the many 
votes we take in this Chamber, confirming circuit court judges ranks 
near the top in importance. The lion's share of all Federal cases, 
after all, are decided at the circuit court level.
  Judge Douglas is also significant because, after her confirmation, 
the Senate will have confirmed 11 Black women to serve as circuit court 
judges. This is a record for any single session of Congress. Before 
President Biden, only eight such nominees had been confirmed by this 
Chamber. So this is truly a historic shift in the court's composition.
  This representation matters enormously. The health of our Federal 
courts hangs on judges who will both apply the law correctly while also 
earning Americans' trust in the first place. The more our courts look 
like the country at large--the more languages and backgrounds and 
specialties we have on the bench--the more likely the trust endures. 
That is more important than ever, given the recent disturbing decisions 
handed down by the Supreme Court.
  That is why judges like Dana Douglas matter. That is why circuit 
court judges matter. And we are going to keep working for the rest of 
this year and beyond to bring diversity and balance back to our courts.


                        Respect for Marriage Act

  Mr. President, on the White House signing ceremony, finally, this 
morning I want to note my tie. I am wearing it today for two reasons. 
First, it is a constant reminder of one of the happiest moments of my 
life, the day my daughter got married. And, second, I am wearing it 
because, later this afternoon, President Biden will sign the Respect 
for Marriage Act into law.
  For many Americans in same-sex marriages--or who one day wish to 
marry their partner--today is a day of relief and of jubilation. By 
passing this law, we are sending a message to LGBTQ 
Americans everywhere: You, too, deserve dignity and equality under the 
law.

  Few bills have hit home for Members on the Hill quite like this one. 
Marriage equality is not just the right thing to do for America, it is 
personal for so many of us, our staffs, and our families.
  My daughter and her wife are beautifully--praise God--expecting their 
first child, my third grandchild, next spring, and I want them to raise 
their child with all the love and security that every child deserves. 
Thanks to the dogged work of many of my colleagues, my grandchild will 
live in a world that will respect and honor their mothers' marriage.
  And, look, nothing about the Respect for Marriage Act was inevitable. 
On the contrary, it took a lot of faith and a bit of risk taking to 
reach this point. When my colleagues came and asked me for a delay, I 
made that choice, and it was because they believed--and I believed--
that the bipartisan process could indeed work.
  It wasn't a decision we took lightly, but today that gamble is paying 
off. So I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for making 
today's signing possible, and I thank my friend Senator Feinstein, who 
originally authored this landmark bill. Because of them and because of 
the millions of Americans out there who pushed for change, history will 
be made at the White House later today.
  I yield the floor.
  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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senate Republicans have spent, 
literally, months focused on the need for a strong bipartisan National 
Defense Authorization Act, as well as robust funding for our Armed 
Forces. Defending our homeland, deterring future threats, and 
supporting our allies and partners should not be last-minute, low 
priorities. They are fundamental duties if we want to remain the 
strongest power in the world, and investing in strength today protects 
our country, our servicemembers, and the American taxpayer tomorrow.
  Let's take, for example, Ukraine. For nearly a year now, the free 
people of a sovereign nation have stood firm and battled against brutal 
and lawless aggression. The Ukrainians' brave stand was made possible, 
in part, because the United States and a number of other countries have 
realized that supporting their self-defense directly serves our own 
interests.
  Europe together constitutes America's largest trading partner. 
Instability in Europe poses a direct threat to countless American 
producers who sell to our friends across the Atlantic. Further, huge 
disruptions to European markets would only add to the inflationary 
challenges that the Democrats' spending has caused us already here at 
home.
  What is more, a successful Russian invasion would embolden the entire 
club of anti-American thug regimes to take bolder and more brazen steps 
toward further conflict, including direct threats to American lives.
  Every day Russia spends on the back foot in Ukraine degrades its own 
ability to wage further wars and dramatically changes the cost-benefit 
calculus for others who might contemplate similar violence.
  Continuing support for Ukraine is the popular mainstream view that 
stretches across the ideological spectrum.
  On my side of the aisle, for example, the former Director of National 
Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, said recently that supporting Ukraine 
``fully and completely'' is in the best interest of the United States.
  The top foreign policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, James 
Carafano, has spoken out forcefully about the need for continued 
military assistance, and so has former Secretary of State Pompeo, 
former Vice President Pence, and virtually every other leading national 
security official from the previous administration.
  Now, while the conflict has exposed serious weaknesses in Russia's 
ability to wage a conventional war, it has also exposed shortcomings in 
the West, particularly with our defense industrial bases.
  Our European friends who had treated themselves to holidays from 
history after the Cold War, who presumed a new normal of stability and 
security and shifted spending disproportionately into domestic 
programs, have received a harsh--harsh--wake-up call. They are rushing 
to reinvest more in their own defenses. Some politicians here in 
America fell victim to the same lullaby.
  Now, fortunately, supplying the specific kinds of American armaments 
that Ukraine needs does not cut our readiness in other important 
regions, such as the Pacific. China and its neighbors are watching the 
conflict in Ukraine closely, and the CCP would be delighted if Ukraine 
fell to Russia.
  But the long lead times to replenish what we are sending still 
provide us with a sober reminder. We know, for a fact, that the world's 
foremost military and economic superpower can and should both produce 
all the capabilities that we need for ourselves and serve as freedom's 
arsenal for our friends at the same time. We just need to organize our 
resources and make critical, overdue investments in our defense 
industrial capacity.
  That is why the National Defense Authorization Act we will take up 
soon provides multiyear procurement authority for longer term 
certainty, planning, and efficiency. It authorizes significant 
investments in modernizing our forces and capabilities.
  But following through on these promises also requires that we pass 
robust appropriations. I made that clear at

[[Page S7109]]

last week's briefing with the Biden officials.
  I will say it again: Providing for the common defense is a 
fundamental governing responsibility. It is not extra credit.
  Our Democratic colleagues will not receive a goody bag of domestic 
spending in exchange for fulfilling this solemn duty.


                        Tribute to Richard Burr

  Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, I would like to 
begin my tribute to another of our distinguished departing colleagues 
by quoting his own words from a letter written back in 2009. Here is 
what he said:

       Dear Mr. and Mrs. Carver, Thank you for entrusting me with 
     [your son's] memorial bracelet at the Asheville Veterans Day 
     Ceremony. I wish there had been more time to talk that day. I 
     returned to Washington, DC with the bracelet on my wrist . . 
     . [your son's] unrelenting courage and zeal for life are what 
     I will think of when I look at his name on my wrist. Rest 
     assured that I will wear [this] bracelet forever.

  A quiet gesture, unheralded and understated, but leaving hugely 
impactful ripples in its wake. A perfect case study of Senator Richard 
Burr.
  At first glance, it might appear to the uninitiated that our 
distinguished friend is a man of contrasts or contradictions. For 
example, this impeccably dressed Southern gentleman has been known to 
drive around town in a rickety old Volkswagen. I think that our dear 
departed colleague John McCain once called it ``an assault on the 
senses''; or take the fact that when most of us were happy enough to 
finish high school as either a successful jock or a successful student, 
Richard was both a standout scholarship football player and winner of 
the science fair; or consider that our unflappable, calm colleague with 
an easy manner--almost casual, really--has been one of this Chamber's 
most dogged legislators and most relentless champions across a whole 
array of critically important causes.
  That special bracelet bearing Army Chief Warrant Officer Mitch 
Carver's name isn't just a comfort to one Gold Star family; it is an 
outward sign of Richard Burr's entire approach to his job: supporting 
service, honoring sacrifice, and making life better for folks in North 
Carolina and across the Nation.
  For 5 years, Richard's colleagues tasked him with helming the 
Intelligence Committee. Some of this institution's most sensitive and 
critical responsibilities wound up right in his lap.
  But Senators on both sides knew that Richard's thoughtfulness, 
fairmindedness, and discretion tailor-made made him for the role--no 
showy victory laps, no braggy press tours. He led with the serious, 
collegial, and patriotic tone that the issues actually demanded.
  This quiet competence has been part of the Richard Burr brand from 
the very beginning. As a backbench House freshman, Richard spearheaded 
massive reforms of the Food and Drug Administration. Long before COVID-
19, he had a personal passion for helping to equip BARDA and other 
pandemic preparedness initiatives.
  Richard has authored transformational legislation that disability 
advocates called the most important advance for their cause in a 
quarter century. He reached across the aisle to help deliver justice 
for victims of decades-old hate crimes. He drove bipartisan consensus 
on a measure that has helped save students and families near $100 
billion in loan payments.
  In a situation folks in my own State know well, he stepped up to help 
tobacco farmers transition to succeed in a freer market, and as the 
ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Richard delivered 
much needed relief to men and women who served our Nation with the 
Veterans Choice Act of 2014.
  It is truly amazing what you can accomplish when you are willing to 
be patient, keep an even keel, share some credit--oh, and occasionally, 
even jump out a window. Let me explain. This is creative problem-
solving in action.
  Back during sequestration, when staffing shortages had closed some of 
the normal entrances and exits around the Capitol campus, our friend 
found himself in the Russell Building while the only open exit was all 
the way over in Dirksen. Rather than lengthen his commute, this ever-
pragmatic man of mystery found the lowest window around, grabbed his 
dry cleaning, shimmied out, and hopped right down to the sidewalk.
  Now the day is fast approaching when our colleague will escape from 
this institution for good, but Richard's remarkable legacy here will 
endure--whether that has meant using his charm and judgment of 
character to disarm committee witnesses and get to the bottom of 
complex issues under investigation or using his fluency in House-speak 
to translate key happenings for us, his colleagues over here in the 
upper Chamber.
  And I would be remiss if I didn't mention how Richard excels at 
turning up the pressure to break a stalemate. You see, if an issue is 
dragging out and no solution appears forthcoming, unless Richard was 
the point person himself, he would frequently just threaten to leave 
town altogether until things got worked out.
  We are talking about a colleague who is famous for keeping closer 
tabs on the Senate's weekly wrapup proceedings than just about anyone.
  In fact, as I understand it, Richard's team became so famous for 
tracking the timing of final votes so closely that some other offices 
would try calling Team Burr for the scoop before they would even try 
the cloakroom.
  Now, with Richard's seemingly laid-back demeanor, you might assume 
our friend was just eager to get out to the beach or hit the links, but 
that would be another one of those deceptive appearances. The truth is, 
Richard didn't become an expert at speedy getaways because he wanted to 
shortchange his duties. In fact, it was just the opposite. Even as 
devoted a public servant as Senator Burr is, he knew that, in the final 
analysis, another set of duties was even more essential.
  When our colleague was first elected to the House in 1994, he and his 
beloved wife Brooke had two young sons, and Brooke was carving out her 
own tremendously successful career in business.
  So our friend was bound and determined that serving the people of 
North Carolina would not mean skimping on his proudest job of all--as 
father to Tyler and William, and now as a grandfather as well.
  Through decades of committed service, he has found a way to do it 
all. But even so, I know Richard is excited to make up for lost time.
  So we thank our colleague for his outstanding work for our country. 
And I have it on good authority that our friend has a favorite catch 
phrase that he has used to bid farewell to his office after they have 
spent a long day doing good work. So, Richard, as you like to say, 
``Dilly dilly.''
  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.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last Tuesday, President Biden was asked why 
he wasn't taking the opportunity to visit the border while traveling to 
Arizona. His reply? ``Because there [is a] more important [thing] going 
on.''
  ``[A] more important [thing] going on.''
  Mr. President, no offense to new investment, but if President Biden 
thinks that visiting a plant to celebrate new investment is more 
important than the security and the humanitarian crises raging at our 
southern border, then his priorities are seriously out of order, but, 
of course, we already knew that.
  This is hardly the first time the President has made it clear what he 
thinks of the crisis at our southern border--as just an annoying 
distraction from what he would rather be doing as President. In fact, 
he has shown a remarkable ability throughout his Presidency to ignore 
or minimize crises that he isn't interested in dealing with.
  ``There [is a] more important [thing] going on.''
  I venture to suggest that for overwhelmed border communities 
struggling with an apparently never-ending influx of illegal 
immigration, there isn't anything--anything--more important going on, 
and the President's

[[Page S7110]]

trivializing of our border crisis is a serious betrayal of the 
responsibility he owes to these Americans and to all Americans.
  The situation at our southern border is out of control and has been 
that way for most of the President's administration. Over this past 
weekend alone, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 
16,000 individuals attempting to cross our southern border illegally. 
That is an average of 8,000 per day--higher than the daily average in 
May, which posted the highest number of attempted illegal crossings 
ever recorded. October saw a staggering 230,678 attempted illegal 
crossings along our southern border.
  All told, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered nearly 2.4 
million individuals attempting to cross our southern border illegally 
during fiscal year 2022. That is the highest number ever recorded, 
exceeding the previous record set the year before by roughly 640,000. 
Of course, these numbers just refer to individuals the Border Patrol 
actually apprehended. There have also been almost 1 million known 
``got-aways'' over the past 2 fiscal years and an untold number of 
unknown ``got-aways.''
  President Biden's comment doesn't just trivialize the scope of this 
crisis; it also trivializes the human misery that has resulted. At 
least 853 migrants died crossing the southern border in fiscal year 
2022--the highest number ever recorded. It is hard to imagine that that 
number wouldn't have been smaller if President Biden had gotten serious 
about addressing this border crisis instead of inviting illegal 
immigration with his lax border policies.
  I mentioned overwhelmed border communities. I should also mention the 
incredible strain the past 2 years have placed on the Border Patrol, 
which has been forced to divert agents from border enforcement to the 
overwhelmed humanitarian mission. Then, of course, there is the very 
real danger represented by unchecked illegal immigration, including the 
risk of dangerous individuals entering our country undetected and the 
potential for increased drug trafficking.
  Illegal drugs are flowing across our southern border and contributing 
to violent crime not just in border communities but in communities 
around the Nation. And that is not even to mention our Nation's 
fentanyl crisis, which is being fed by drugs that are trafficked 
across--where else?--our southern border. Our current border crisis is 
an open invitation to increased illegal drug activity, but the 
President has more important places to be than the southern border even 
though, I should point out, he has never actually visited the southern 
border--not once. The closest he got was literally driving by the 
border on the way to a campaign rally in 2008.

  For border communities and strained Border Patrol agents, I venture 
to say that there is nothing more important than getting our Nation's 
border crisis under control, but I guess we will just have to keep 
waiting. After all, the President has more important things to do.


                               Inflation

  Mr. President, in other tone-deaf comments from the Biden 
administration last week, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain said:

       Fiscal responsibility is very important to us in the Biden 
     administration. We're very well aware that we have to stay 
     within our means economically. I think . . . you see that in 
     everything we've tried to do these past two years.

  That was from the President's Chief of Staff.
  Well, when I read that, I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry or just 
be angry on behalf of the millions of Americans who are currently 
suffering as a result of the Democrats' lack of fiscal responsibility 
over the past 2 years. We are currently in the midst of the worst 
inflation crisis in 40 years. My daughters, who are married and have 
their own children now, weren't even alive the last time inflation was 
this bad.
  November's inflation numbers came out this morning, and they just 
confirmed what we already know: that we are still very much in the 
midst of this crisis. Currently, inflation is up 13.8 percent since 
January of 2021, when President Biden took office. Even if our 
inflation crisis ended tomorrow, the inflation we have already 
experienced will cost the average household more than $9,000 over the 
next 12 months--$9,000. Now, for a lot of families, that is the 
difference between prosperity and just getting by. For many others, it 
is the difference between just getting by and not being able to get by 
at all.
  How did we get here? Well, in substantial part, it is thanks to the 
President's and Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility.
  When Democrats took office in January 2021, Congress had just passed 
a fifth bipartisan COVID bill that met essentially all of the current 
pressing COVID needs, but the Democrats just wanted to keep spending. 
So, despite being warned that the size of the package they were 
contemplating risked overheating our economy, under the guise of COVID 
relief, the Democrats passed a massive and partisan $1.9 trillion 
spending bill filled with unnecessary spending and payoffs to the 
Democrats' interest groups. The economy, not surprisingly, overheated 
as a result. Inflation began climbing and climbing and climbing again.
  But what is almost worse and what makes the White House's claim that 
they care about fiscal responsibility so incredibly ludicrous is what 
the Democrats and the President did next. Even as it became clear that 
their massive spending spree had helped set off a serious inflation 
problem, the Democrats and the President kept pushing for more 
spending. In fact, their goal, which they were, fortunately, prevented 
from achieving, was passing another massive spending spree in the 
neighborhood of $5 trillion.
  Even after that plan was foiled, the Democrats and the President kept 
right on pursuing more fiscally irresponsible legislation. In August, 
the Democrats passed legislation, their so-called Inflation Reduction 
Act--again filled with hundreds of billions of dollars in Green New 
Deal spending, partially financed by tax hikes that will raise energy 
prices and slow job creation.
  Democrats tried to clothe the bill in an aura of fiscal 
responsibility by claiming--dubiously, I might add--that it would 
reduce the deficit by $300 billion.
  Do you want to know how long that purported deficit reduction lasted 
once the bill was signed into law? Eight days. Eight days. That is how 
long it took for President Biden to completely wipe out any deficit 
reduction of the bill by implementing his massive student loan 
giveaway--a giveaway that not only wipes out any possible deficit 
reduction but will also, according to the Committee for a Responsible 
Federal Budget, ``meaningfully boost inflation.'' Yet we are supposed 
to believe that the Biden administration values fiscal responsibility.
  When it comes to fiscal responsibility, the Biden administration has 
demonstrated that it could not care less. The Biden administration is 
interested in implementing the big-government priorities of the far 
left, no matter how much they cost. And, unfortunately, the American 
people are the ones paying the price.
  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. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tribute to   David McKinley

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, today, I rise to really honor a seventh-
generation West Virginian, a lifelong Wheeling native, a devoted 
husband, father, grandfather, and public servant, my very good friend, 
Congressman   David McKinley.
  David and I have known each other for a very long time. He and Mary, 
his wife, have extended steadfast love and friendship to my entire 
family but, in particular, to my parents during some good times and 
bad. Those friendships extended for many, many years and never wavered.
  From when David was a delegate in the West Virginia State House to 
when he chaired the West Virginia Republican Party to later when he 
became my colleague and our colleague in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, we worked together a lot.
  David got a slot on the Energy and Commerce Committee during his very

[[Page S7111]]

first year in Washington. Now, I had already been there 10 years and 
still hadn't made it to the Energy and Commerce Committee, so I was a 
little bit jealous of David then. But, wow, did he really do tremendous 
work on that committee.
  Although time has gone by, David's passion and his love for West 
Virginia have never wavered, and his pragmatic service has never 
changed.
  As the only licensed engineer in the House of Representatives--and if 
you didn't know that, David is quick to tell you--his unique and 
thoughtful analysis to challenges has helped his constituents 
immensely, and it certainly made West Virginia a better place. And, by 
the way, he has helped me understand some very complex issues.
  In fact, I don't think there are as many Members of Congress who have 
held townhall meetings on the Megabus to DC as David has to meet with 
our constituents. But David never misses an opportunity to have a 
conversation.
   David has played an essential role in advancing legislation critical 
to infrastructure, life-altering hearing aid devices, and securing the 
pensions and retirement benefits that our West Virginia coal miners 
rely on.
   David is, and always will be, a problem-solver, and he brought 
thoughtful solutions to the needs of our fellow West Virginians every 
single day with unrelenting passion.
  I have mentioned passion many times already in this short speech, but 
``passion'' is a very fitting word because David does not do anything 
halfway. He is passionate about our State of West Virginia. He is 
passionate about West Virginia University's football team and all 
sports teams. And he is always there ready to cheer on the 
Mountaineers.

  He is passionate about his hometown of Wheeling, and he is a 
passionate defender of those Northern Panhandlers, which is what I am 
as well. He is passionate about the men and women who have worked to 
power our Nation and the solutions to our future.
  But there is another component to David's public service and his life 
that we must stop and recognize, and that is of his beloved wife, Mary.
  Mary has truly been a partner to David and his work to make West 
Virginia stronger and healthier. Mary received her masters of science 
degree in nursing from none other than West Virginia University, has 
had an exceptional career as a nurse at Ohio Valley Medical Center, and 
is the director of education and professional development at the Ohio 
Valley Health Services and Education Corporation in Wheeling.
  But do you know what? Mary has a national presence as well. Mary 
served as the national president of the American Association of 
Critical Care Nurses. She epitomizes West Virginia's warmth and 
friendliness, and we thank her for her service to our State as well.
  As I reflect on Congressman McKinley's Federal work and 
accomplishments, perhaps no other area has seen his trademark tireless 
devotion than protecting and promoting the hard work and values 
embodied by our West Virginia coal miners.
  David has fought tooth and nail for our coal miners' livelihoods, for 
their healthcare, and for their ability to power this Nation but 
sometimes get taken for granted when we look at the sacrifices that 
they have made.
  As David turns the page on this chapter of his life, I am sure this 
is not the last that we will hear from him. I certainly hope not. In 
retirement, David and Mary will be able to enjoy time spent with their 
four children and six grandchildren.
  With David's time in Congress coming to a close, his thoughtful 
approach to problems and his fearless advocacy on behalf of West 
Virginians will be missed in this town, will be missed in our country, 
but certainly can never be erased from our State and our country's 
history. But his contributions and the example he set will continue to 
stay with us always.
  I admire David's tenacity and divisiveness. You really never have to 
wonder what David McKinley thinks on a certain topic. I like that. I 
like that. For that, we should all be grateful. I know that I and West 
Virginians are certainly grateful.
  So, David, thank you for your service. I know he is not coming back 
into town until tomorrow, but I wanted to get this on the record. The 
difference that you have made in our State that we both love, and the 
friendship and counsel that you have provided me over the years is much 
appreciated.
  So when I see David and we have a conversation and he sends me on my 
way, he has a trademark saying that he always says to me, so I am going 
to say it back to him today. David, I will say this to you: Go get `em, 
kid.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 5941

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk a few minutes about 
Medicare.
  If I am on Medicare and I go to my physician for an earache and my 
physician treats me, hopefully successfully, my physician then does not 
turn around and send a bill to Medicare that says: For services 
rendered for an earache. What my physician does is fill out a form that 
has a bunch of codes on it, and my physician fills out the form with 
the code for an earache.
  Now, what does that mean? That means that when that form with a code 
for an earache goes to Washington, the administrators at Medicare look 
up the code for an earache, and they know then how much they are going 
to pay my physician for treating an earache.
  As you can imagine, there are thousands of codes--literally thousands 
of codes--because there are thousands of diagnoses for which our 
citizens on Medicare seek treatment every year.
  So, every year, Medicare puts out a fee schedule, and in its 
essential form this is just a schedule listing all of the codes for all 
the different illnesses that doctors who treat Medicare patients bill 
for. And these codes, this fee schedule, are used to reimburse doctors 
and hospitals. Well, of course, it is not as simple as that, and the 
way that the codes are put together and the fee schedule is put 
together are not exactly a model of clarity. And we need to do better, 
and, hopefully, someday we will do better. But, at the moment, we have 
to deal with reality as it is.
  Now, in setting a code--or how much Medicare is going to pay my 
doctor for treating my earache under Medicare--and in putting together 
the fee schedule, which is put together by the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, which I will just refer to it as ``Medicare''--
Medicare takes all kinds of factors into consideration in deciding how 
much to pay my doctor for an earache. Medicare looks at things like the 
diagnosis, of course. Medicare will pay less for an earache than for 
heart surgery. Medicare looks at the procedure that the doctor had to 
use.
  Medicare looks at the location. If I go to my doctor in Baton Rouge, 
where my primary care physician is located, the cost of living in Baton 
Rouge is lower than the cost of living in New York. So the fee for an 
earache paid by Medicare to my Baton Rouge physician is going to be 
lower than that paid to a physician in New York.
  The fee schedule looks at time and expenses of the doctor. The fee 
schedule that Medicare puts together looks at things like the cost of 
maintaining a practice: rent, supplies, support personnel. The fee 
schedule tries to take into consideration the cost of medical 
malpractice.
  So the point is that a doctor treating me in Baton Rouge for an 
earache will not receive the same fee that a doctor, for example, in 
New York will receive for treating a patient there under Medicare for 
an earache.
  But every year Medicare gets together and they send out a new fee 
schedule, and it is a very complicated process. And that process is 
complicated by the fact of what we call budget neutrality. Under 
current law, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--or 
Medicare, as I have been calling it--is required to make budget 
neutrality adjustments to the payment schedule. And the technical 
definition is--I will read it to you, and then I will explain it: 
Medicare is required to make Medicare physician payment schedule 
adjustments whenever changes in relative value units generate a payment 
increase or decrease of $200 million.
  I told you it was complicated.
  Now, what does that mean? That means that Medicare is statutorily 
required--required by Congress--to maintain budget neutrality, and this 
means that, as certain codes increase in value, in order to maintain 
budget neutrality, Medicare has to reduce payment for other codes. 
Budget neutrality is also

[[Page S7112]]

much more complicated than I just explained it, but those are the basic 
rules.
  Now, here is the problem. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services--CMS, or Medicare, as I have been referring to it--has just 
released their 2023 physician fee schedule. The new fee schedule has 
come out, and because of the formula and because of the budget 
neutrality requirement, CMS is proposing--or Medicare--a 4.5-percent 
across-the-board reduction in Medicare payments. So every payment is 
going to be cut 4.5 percent across the board.
  Well, it gets even more difficult. Due to the $1.9 trillion deficit 
increase caused by the American Rescue Plan and under our budget rules, 
pay-go sequestration is going to be triggered by the American Rescue 
Plan, and that is going to require an additional 4-percent reduction 
across the board in payments to physicians and hospitals.
  So unless we do something, every physician who treats a patient who 
is on Medicare--it doesn't matter what for--is going to be paid 8.5 
percent less--in the middle of raging inflation, in the middle of not 
only doctor shortages but staff shortages as well.
  Now, this is not the first time we have had this problem. We had it 
last year, and we had it the year before. We solved it then, but we 
need to solve it today. And you do not have to be a senior at Cal Tech 
to figure out that if you cut physicians' fees for every different 
diagnosis for which Americans seek treatment from a Medicare physician 
by 8.5 percent, physicians are going to have to either make it up 
somewhere or stop seeing Medicare patients. So all of a sudden your 
doctor under Medicare is not taking any more Medicare patients. We 
don't want that.
  Not only that, but the Medicare fee schedule is looked to by private 
insurance companies when they determine how much to pay physicians 
under their insurance plans. That is the problem.
  Here is what my bill would do to solve it. My bill would freeze the 
current fee schedule in this sense--not per se but indirectly. My bill 
would keep physician reimbursement at existing levels. So the amount 
that doctors are paid today for that earache would be the same next 
year.

  My bill would pause the pay-go cuts until 2024. So, in effect, my 
bill would prevent, next year, an 8.5-percent reduction across the 
board to physician fees.
  Now, I know what you are thinking, Mr. President. You are thinking: 
Well, I have heard speeches by Kennedy before about controlling the 
cost of spending in government and the rate of growth. So here he is 
suggesting that we spend more.
  And it is true that this bill would replace the fee schedule cuts by 
adding money to the Medicare budget. The pay-go cuts would just be 
postponed. But I have a pay-for. I am not asking this Congress just to 
add spending and go borrow the money and put us further in debt. I have 
a way to pay for it.
  As you know, we sent--``we,'' meaning the U.S. Congress, sent--a lot 
of money to our healthcare delivery system during COVID to help 
patients, or, rather, to help physicians and hospitals deal with our 
healthcare crisis. We sent a lot of that money through what is called 
the Provider Relief Fund. These are dollars that were sent out to the 
hospitals and the doctors to help them get through the COVID pandemic.
  Our doctors and hospitals didn't use all that money. They have 
returned some of it, believe it or not. As of February of this year, a 
few months ago, they had returned $9.8 billion. And I suspect, by now, 
they have returned, as best as we can tell from CBO, about $15 billion. 
So we have $15 billion in our healthcare budget that is not accounted 
for in terms of how it would be spent.
  My bill would cost $2.25 billion. I would propose, Mr. President, 
that we pay for that $2.25 billion and take it out of what I believe is 
the $15 billion pot of money that was returned to the Provider Relief 
Fund. So I have a problem, I have a solution, and I have a way to pay 
for it without us having to spend money we don't have and thereby 
borrow it.
  So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 5194.
  Let me stop just for a moment, Mr. President. We have to solve this 
problem. We are going to solve this problem. We solved it last year, 
and we solved it the year before. Nobody in this body wants to throw 
people off Medicare.
  Now, we are having trouble putting together a budget. I don't know 
how that movie is going to end. It may end with an omnibus. It may end 
with a continuing resolution, where we will wait for a new Congress. 
But we need to solve this problem now and not make it contingent on an 
omnibus and not make it contingent upon a continuing resolution. We 
need to solve it now for the American people who depend on Medicare, 
and that is what my bill does.
  We can continue to fight over the budget. We can continue to fight 
over the CR. But we are going to solve this problem today with a pay-
for, with my bill.
  So I repeat, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 5194 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and I 
further ask 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me say to our colleague from Louisiana 
that I very much agree with much of the statement he has given. I have 
been interested in these sensible policies with respect to providers 
since the days when I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers. So 
our colleague from Louisiana is talking about important issues.
  As chair of the Finance Committee, I can say that nobody on either 
side wants to see financial hardship for healthcare providers or 
disruption to the healthcare system. This is particularly important 
when you have got COVID, what looks like a god-awful flu, and an RSV 
crisis filling up the doctors' and hospitals' waiting rooms nationwide.
  What I can tell my colleague from Louisiana is that, on both sides of 
the aisle on the Finance Committee, Democrats and Republicans have put 
in some long hours--long hours--discussing solutions to these physician 
payment issues with our colleagues in the House on both sides and the 
administration.
  Our discussions include other critical healthcare issues. For 
example, I think my colleague knows that Senator Crapo and I have been 
very focused on mental healthcare, making it easier for Americans to 
get mental healthcare when they need it.
  And we are especially proud that this bipartisanship is paying off. 
As our colleagues may know, Senator Crapo and I got four major 
provisions--four--into the commonsense gun safety law--everything from 
helping kids on Medicaid, behavioral health--our colleague, Senator 
Stabenow. So we believe strongly in writing black-letter law on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Now, the reason I am taking the time to put this into context, it is 
very important that our bipartisan discussions on a yearend healthcare 
package continue. Time is, obviously, short.
  I am just coming off two red-eye flights to Oregon in the last 4 
days, and I want my colleague to know, again, I appreciate much of what 
he has said. I didn't come to the floor to say, Senator Kennedy is 
horrible. Quite the contrary. I think he has good ideas here. Time is 
tight, and I am confident there is a bipartisan agreement around the 
corner.
  I do say to my colleague, passing this proposal now, in my view, 
would make this process that we are part of, Senator Crapo and I--
talking to the administration, talking to the House, and doing all the 
things that my colleagues have a lot of experience on--passing this 
proposal now would make it harder to reach a bipartisan agreement on 
physician payments, mental health, a variety of other key kinds of 
issues. So I will just say, with the understanding, a, that my 
colleague has raised important points and, b, that Members on both 
sides are working towards a

[[Page S7113]]

shared goal on this issue, Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate my good friend Senator 
Wyden's comments. And I hope he gets some sleep off that red-eye 
flight.
  I am just going to repeat quickly what I said before.
  I hope we can put together--we can't solve this problem without 
passing a bill. I don't know if we are going to be able to pass a bill, 
any kind of bill. Hopefully, before we go home for Christmas and before 
this Congress ends, we will be able to do the National Defense 
Authorization Act, which I think we are going to do this week. There 
will be some people objecting to the NDAA. I know that. And it will 
slow it down. But after they object and they get to be dramatic for a 
little while, we will come back and pass the bill. And then we will 
decide whether to do an omnibus or whether we are going to do a 
continuing resolution and wait for the new Congress.
  But in order to solve this problem, we have got to do something now. 
And there are millions of Americans out there that are looking at an 
8\1/2\ percent cut to Medicare when we have an 8-percent inflation. 
That is a 16-point swing. And those millions of people are not just 
physicians or nurses. They are patients who depend on Medicare for life 
and death.
  So I hope that the chairman of Finance, who is whip smart, will 
consider my proposal. It would postpone the pay-go cuts of 4 percent, 
and it would freeze the current fee schedule. If we don't, if the new 
fee schedule goes into effect, we are going to have another 4\1/2\ 
percent cut--that is where I get the 8\1/2\ percent--and it would pay 
for it.
  It wouldn't increase debt at all. We pay for it, very simply, as I 
explained. We pay for it out of the $15 billion in the Provider Relief 
Fund.
  And if our Finance Committee doesn't like that as a pay-for, I have 
another one. You can pay for it out of the Medicare Improvement Fund. 
It has 7.3 billion in it. Now, that is $24 billion we have got to solve 
the $2.5 billion problem so the elderly in our country can sleep 
tonight. So I hope my esteemed colleague will take this into 
consideration. And I know that he will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                            Flood Insurance

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to talk for a minute about 
another subject: flood insurance. It doesn't do any good to offer flood 
insurance when people can't afford it. And that is what FEMA is doing 
right now.
  We all know--or most people know--that you can't buy flood insurance 
really in the private market. I mean, you can, but for the most part, 
you can't. And if your house floods and you have homeowners insurance, 
don't make the mistake of thinking your homeowners insurance covers it 
because it doesn't. You have got to go buy special flood insurance.
  And we have had this problem for a while, and the Federal Government 
addressed it by creating the National Flood Insurance Program. We call 
it, as you know, NFIP. About 5 million people who wouldn't be insured 
for flood otherwise are members of the National Flood Insurance 
Program. They don't get it for free. They pay for the flood insurance, 
and they pay dearly.
  My State, Louisiana, has 5,000 people out of 5 million who depend on 
the National Flood Insurance Program. We in Louisiana have the highest 
participation rate in the country, bar none. And despite what some 
people may think, my people who are buying flood insurance, they are 
not multimillionaires; they are working people. They are people who get 
up every day and go to work, and they obey the law and pay their taxes. 
They try to do the right thing by their children. They live paycheck to 
paycheck. These aren't multimillionaires paying for this flood 
insurance. And they are not paying for the flood insurance on mansions 
on the beach. We don't have those in Louisiana. These are working 
people.
  Now, for my people and for most Americans who carry flood insurance, 
their home is their biggest investment. It is the biggest investment 
they will ever make. It is the most money they will ever spend at one 
time. And so they want to protect their investment. And they need flood 
insurance to do that. And we in the Federal Government solved the 
problem when we created the National Flood Insurance Program.

  Now, last year, FEMA, which is under the executive branch, of 
course--we all know what FEMA is--FEMA rolled out the most significant 
change in history in the way the National Flood Insurance Program 
calculates the cost of flood insurance--the most important change in 
history--and they didn't ask Congress for our input. They just did it.
  They went out and hired a consultant who created a new algorithm. And 
this algorithm, supposedly, says FEMA, can see the future. It can look 
out 35 years and tell whether your home is going to flood and when it 
is going to flood. And they cannot only look at a particular area, they 
say this algorithm is so good that it can look at your specific 
property and tell whether it is going to flood and assess the risk. 
Man, I want a dozen of those.
  FEMA calls this Risk Rating 2.0. There is just one problem: FEMA 
won't tell any of us in the U.S. Congress, much less the American 
people, how this algorithm works. I asked them to give me the 
algorithm, and I would pay, at my expense--at my expense--to have 
somebody evaluate it. FEMA said, if I showed it to you, Kennedy, I 
would have to kill you. They won't show it to us.
  But yet when I asked them about it--I have asked them in committees--
FEMA says, Risk Rating 2.0--that is what they call it--they say it is 
fairer, and they say it is based on the value of your home and the 
unique flood risk for that property. Once again, man, FEMA is 
clairvoyant. This algorithm is awesome. They can look out 35 years; 
they just won't tell us how they do it.
  There is no transparency on this grading 2.0. People have absolutely 
no idea, Members of the U.S. Congress have no idea, how this algorithm 
works and how they come up with the specific price for every home in 
America. But I will tell you what we do know: All the prices have gone 
up.
  Let me give you an example. In Louisiana, we have a lot of levees. A 
lot of those levees are helped paid for with Americans' taxpayer money. 
And we are grateful to our neighbors and America for helping us out. 
But a lot of those levees are paid for by Louisiana citizens. We have 
asked: How does this algorithm, in raising these prices, take into 
account the levees? Are we getting credit for our levees? And they say: 
Sure. And I say: Can you show me? And they say: If I showed you, I 
would have to kill you; this is a secret algorithm.
  No transparency. None.
  Now, in the past, FEMA has already recognized levees and their 
importance. And they say they are doing it now under Risk Rating 2.0. 
But they won't show us how. And our levees work. Our levees work.
  Last year, we had a number of storms. We had one that came through 
New Orleans. We have a levee system around New Orleans. It held. Thank 
you, American taxpayers. But we don't know how FEMA takes that into 
account. They say they do. They say: Trust us.
  You know, every now and then, I play poker with friends. And they are 
all good friends. I trust them. But you know what, every time I play 
poker, every hand, I cut the cards. It is not a matter of friendship or 
trust. That is just the way it is supposed to be: transparency.
  Now, this isn't just my opinion. There was an interview in the Times-
Picayune, Mr. Dwayne Bourgeois. Mr. Bourgeois knows what he is talking 
about. He is the executive director of the North Lafourche 
Conservation, Levee, and Drainage District in Louisiana. He is an 
expert on floodwater drainage and levees. This is what he said about 
the Risk Rating 2.0:

       I [just] can't figure out why some people get this minimum 
     result and these other people get the maximum result. I can't 
     tell you what the secret sauce is to get to that rate.

  And the reason he can't is because FEMA will not tell us what the 
secret sauce is. What is the effect of this secret sauce? FEMA says it 
is going to make everything fairer. I know this much: It is going to 
make everything more expensive.
  According to FEMA's estimates, 80 percent of the people who have 
flood

[[Page S7114]]

insurance and have to have flood insurance in Louisiana--in part 
because the mortgage company requires it--are going to see their rates 
go up.
  The likely average full-risk premium for a home in Louisiana under 
this new secret sauce is $1,700. Under the old system, it was $766. 
That is a 122-percent increase because of this algorithm, this secret 
sauce, which FEMA will not let us see.
  My people can't afford this. And the reality is, people are already 
dropping flood insurance. They are saying: We just can't pay for it. 
Something has to give. We have inflation at 8 percent or my rent has 
gone up. Food has gone up. Gas has gone up. We just can't afford it.
  The number of flood insurance policies in eight of my parishes--we 
call our counties parishes--in eight of my parishes or counties, the 
number of policies has dropped from 290,000 in October 2021 to 267,000 
in November of 2022, and it has fallen.
  So that is 22,000 people--almost 23,000--out of only 8 parishes or 
counties who have had to give up their flood insurance.
  Now, it is not just Louisiana, Mr. President. You may be having the 
problem in California.
  The Associated Press estimates that 1 million fewer Americans will be 
able to afford to buy flood insurance by the end of the decade because 
of Risk Rating 2.0, their algorithm, their secret sauce. And E&E News 
has identified 425,000 policyholders across the country who have 
already discontinued coverage.
  What does that mean for each State? Well, for example, cancellations 
of flood insurance because they can't afford it. Eleven percent of the 
people of California who were buying flood insurance can't afford it 
anymore, they have dropped it; 11 percent of the policyholders in 
Texas; 9.6 percent in Florida; in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, 
and South Carolina, 8 percent.
  Now, this is a disaster waiting to happen. And I am all for a fair 
system, but I will tell you what I am not for. I am not for having a 
Federal Agency, without consulting the U.S. Congress, without talking 
to you, Mr. President, about your policyholders in California or me in 
Louisiana, without explaining to us how they are doing it, just 
unilaterally raising prices with an algorithm or their secret sauce, as 
I call it.
  Now, Senators Cassidy and Gillibrand and I have introduced a bill. It 
is called the Flood Insurance Pricing Transparency Act. It is a 
bipartisan bill. All we are asking that FEMA do is talk to us and tell 
us how they are coming up with these rate increases.
  The American people pay the salary of the people at FEMA, and my 
people and your people, Mr. President, deserve to know how their 
policies are being priced.
  And, Mr. President--Mr. President Biden, if you are listening--I hope 
you will pick up the phone and you will call your FEMA Director, for 
whom I have great respect--I don't hate anybody--but I hope the 
President will call the FEMA Director here and ask him what planet he 
just parachuted in from and what is he thinking, raising these kinds of 
prices without telling the American people why.


                     Nomination of Dana M. Douglas

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm 
Judge Dana Douglas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  Born and raised in New Orleans, Judge Douglas' passion for the law 
and public service was inspired by her family's background in law 
enforcement. In particular, her mother, Ms. Ida Woodfork, served in the 
Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office for 30 years, and her uncle, Mr. Warren 
Woodfork, Sr., was the first Black superintendent of the New Orleans 
Police Department.
  Judge Douglas earned her B.A. in social work and Black world studies 
at Miami University and received her J.D. from Loyola University School 
of Law. From there, she clerked for Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on the U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
  Judge Douglas then spent 18 years litigating, trying four cases to 
verdict or judgment and handling several administrative matters before 
State agencies. Although she worked in private practice, she also 
served the community for 9 years as a commissioner and then vice 
president of the New Orleans Civil Service Commission, a quasi-judicial 
body regulating the city's civil service.
  Since 2019, Judge Douglas has served as a magistrate judge for the 
Eastern District of Louisiana. In that time, she has authored 111 
reports and recommendations, all of which have been adopted in whole or 
in part by the district court.
  Judge Douglas enjoys the strong support of Senators Kennedy and 
Cassidy, and the American Bar Association unanimously rated her as 
``qualified'' to serve on the Fifth Circuit.
  If confirmed, Judge Douglas will be the first woman of color to serve 
on the Fifth Circuit.
  Judge Douglas' experience, qualifications, and temperament will be 
assets on the Fifth Circuit, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting her nomination.


                       Vote on Douglas Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the Douglas nomination?
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Hickenlooper) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 388 Ex.]

                                YEAS--65

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

                                NAYS--31

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     Hickenlooper
     Murkowski
     Sullivan
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Sinema). 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.

                          ____________________