[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 13, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2256-S2260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WITHHOLDING THE PAY OF SENATORS IF A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN OCCURS--Motion
To Proceed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526, a
resolution withholding the pay of Senators if a Government
shutdown occurs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
National Police Week
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, here in DC this week is Police Week,
and we are reflecting on the brave men and women who serve us in
Tennessee and also across this country, where they are serving our
communities every day with courage, with integrity, and with honor. We
so appreciate their service. Every day, they put their lives on the
line to protect their families, their friends, their neighbors. They
enforce the law, and they keep the peace; and for that, they deserve
every American's enduring gratitude.
Few places better capture the magnitude of their sacrifices than the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial that is here in our Nation's
Capital. Engraved on that memorial are the names of every fallen
officer in our country going back to the year 1850. This memorial
contains 24,775 names. This week, 363 heroes are being added, including
3 from Tennessee: Hugh Carlen of Putnam County, whose watch ended
February 24, 1912; James Hood of Jonesborough, who fell in the line of
duty August 26, 1928; and Deputy Sheriff Justin Bradford Mowery, of
Blount County, whom we tragically lost on December 28.
This week's candlelight vigil will provide a powerful moment to
reflect on their sacrifices and their stories and those made by the
thousands of other officers on the Roll Call of Heroes.
There is a reason our officers are called the thin blue line: They
are the only force separating us from chaos, disorder, and anarchy.
They take pride in their responsibility, but to do their jobs, they
need the support of their communities, their States, their country.
They need the support of this Chamber, and for too long, they have
lacked that support from Democrat leadership. Instead of funding the
police, the Democrats have worked to defund the police and, indeed, all
law enforcement. But, under President Trump, the Federal Government is
backing the blue from one side of this country to another.
In Tennessee, we have seen this much needed support in Memphis. For
years, Memphis, which is an iconic American city, has struggled with
rampant crime. In 2024, it had the highest crime rate per capita of any
city in the country. Memphians truly suffered. Indeed, all West
Tennesseans suffered. Many could not walk outside of their homes
without fear of being robbed, assaulted, or murdered in Memphis.
Under the President's leadership, those days are coming to an end.
Since launching the Memphis Safe Task Force last year, crime in Memphis
has plummeted. In the first quarter of this year, overall crime was
down more than 40 percent compared to 2025. Indeed, since the task
force began 7 months ago, the crime rate has been cut 50 percent.
The way this happened was in coordination with local, State, and
Federal resources. The task force has done a great job in getting
criminals off the street and behind bars. In total, authorities have
made more than 9,000 arrests, including 996 for narcotics, 838 for
firearms offenses, 105 for sex offenses, and 67 for homicide. They have
also seized 1,500 illegal firearms, and they have located 150 missing
children. Every single American--indeed, every Member of this Chamber--
should applaud this success.
In the Senate, Republicans are working to support the
administration's effort. My Restoring Law and Order Act would increase
funding for law enforcement and help keep violent criminals behind
bars.
The Protecting Law Enforcement Officers from Doxxing Act would make
it illegal to dox Federal law enforcement officials and put them in
harm's way.
The Safer Prisons Act would double the maximum term of imprisonment
for assaulting a Federal Bureau of Prisons correctional officer.
While Republicans work to support our brave officers, unfortunately,
many of our Democratic colleagues are trying to do everything in their
power to undermine law enforcement.
For 76 days, they shut down the Department of Homeland Security, left
the Secret Service, Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA, and other critical Agencies
without funding, and they jeopardized our Nation's security at a time
of heightened threats from the world's largest sponsor of terrorism,
Iran.
And the reason? Well, they had a petty reason. They used our Federal
law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security as a trading
chip. What they were trying to do was to abolish ICE, end the
enforcement of our immigration laws, and defund Federal law
enforcement.
Thank goodness they were not successful. They got nothing for their
little fit. President Trump brought this charade to an end late last
month by signing into law legislation that reopened DHS and restored
its vital operations.
Now Republicans are moving forward with a public security bill that
will fund ICE and Customs and Border Protection for years to come. We
are accomplishing this through the reconciliation process, and that is
the same process we used to pass the Working Families Tax Cut last
year. We are going to make certain we can fund these vital Agencies.
Our colleagues across the aisle can continue to oppose the rule of
law, and they can side with criminals over law enforcement. They can
continue to side
[[Page S2257]]
with illegal aliens rather than citizens, and they can continue to
champion the same radical policies that unleashed chaos at the border
and across the country during the Biden administration, but that will
not stop Republicans from saluting our men and women in uniform, from
backing the blue, from standing with the thin blue line, and making
certain that law enforcement has what they need to provide safety for
American citizens in communities coast to coast.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Nomination of Kevin Warsh
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on Donald
Trump's attempt to take over America's central bank.
Trump's economy is in big trouble, and everybody knows it, including
Donald Trump. Consumer sentiment is at an alltime low. Families are
paying more for groceries, more for housing, more for healthcare--all
thanks to Trump's chaotic tariffs and his One Big Beautiful Bill, and
now his foolish and illegal war with Iran is further driving up the
cost of gas and the cost of nearly everything else here at home.
So it is no wonder that Donald Trump is desperate to salvage the
economy before November's midterm elections. Now, he can do that.
Instead of taking action to lower prices, which he could do, he has
cooked up a ridiculous scheme: Install sock puppets at the Federal
Reserve Board who are willing to artificially juice the economy. Of
course, it will be American families who pay the price when this scheme
backfires and raises prices and the cost of borrowing even more.
Donald Trump has not been subtle about this takeover attempt. First,
he opened a bogus criminal investigation into Fed Governor Lisa Cook,
and he illegally tried to fire her. Then he opened another bogus
criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jay Powell--all in a ploy to push
him out.
Trump then proclaimed:
Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed
Chairman.
And, about a month later, he nominated Kevin Warsh to be his sock
puppet on the Fed.
Consideration of Mr. Warsh's nomination was rightfully delayed by
some of my Republican colleagues when they joined Democrats in refusing
to move forward amid the Department of Justice's phony inquiry into
Chair Powell, but the second that the administration pretended to close
the investigation, Republicans folded and advanced Mr. Warsh's
nomination. No one here is fooled. The investigation is still open.
But don't take it from me. Take it from President Trump, who said the
investigation is ``not dropped.''
Take it from the President's spokeswoman, who said ``The
investigation still continues.''
Take it from U.S. attorney Pirro, who said that she ``will not
hesitate to restart a criminal investigation.'' She went on to promise
that her office would ``continue to litigate the issue.''
And no one should forget that President Trump is still trying to fire
Fed Governor Cook, taking it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and
the Justice Department's reported criminal probe against her is
ongoing.
So it is clear that Donald Trump is still using bogus criminal
investigations as a way to take over the Fed--to push out the people
who have been confirmed so that he can install his own people who will
do exactly what he wants.
So let me turn to Mr. Warsh, the nominee. At this unprecedented
moment in the Fed's history, he is uniquely unqualified to lead the
Agency, and that is why every single Democrat on the Banking Committee
voted against his nomination--the first party-line vote ever for a Fed
Chair, ever in history.
First, Mr. Warsh has proven to be a sock puppet for President Trump.
During his confirmation hearing, Warsh couldn't even say that Trump
lost the 2020 election. We need a Fed Chair who evaluates economic data
and sets monetary policy in the real world, not in Trump's delusional
alternative reality.
Second, Mr. Warsh has refused to disclose the sources of more than
$100 million worthwhile of assets. If confirmed, he will be the
wealthiest Fed Chair in history, but he refuses to provide transparency
to the American people about who he is entangled with. During his
hearing, Mr. Warsh refused to say if he is invested in companies
affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies that have
facilitated money laundering, Chinese-controlled companies, or
financing vehicles established by Jeffrey Epstein.
We have no idea if Mr. Warsh owns stock in any banks, which will be
in direct violation of the Federal Reserve Act upon his swearing in
later this week.
We also have no idea how and to whom Mr. Warsh will divest those
secret assets. Based on the information we pieced together, it is
possible that Stanley Druckenmiller, who makes a living betting on what
the Fed will do next, may cut Mr. Warsh a huge check to cash him out.
The American people would be right to question who Mr. Warsh will serve
if a billionaire gives him a sweetheart deal just as Mr. Warsh takes
office.
Third, Warsh says that he has ``no regrets'' from his catastrophic
tenure as a Fed Governor before, during, and after the 2008 financial
crash. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which Congress set up
to investigate the causes of the financial crisis, found that Governor
Warsh attended multiple meetings in 2006 in which participants rung the
alarm about subprime mortgages and rising mortgages and rising
foreclosures and implored the Fed to use its authority to address these
risks. Not only did Mr. Warsh ignore these warnings, he pushed back
against them. In fact, in 2007, he said:
Subprime mortgages have gotten a bad name in this
environment, and in some cases, that's not just.
He also said later that he doesn't ``see any immediate systemic risk
issues'' among the big banks. Remember, this is shortly before the
crash of 2008.
Then, for good measure, Mr. Warsh also praised risky financial
instruments like credit default swaps that helped trigger the 2008
crash, and he said: No, these are innovations that make the financial
system safer.
So that is what he did before the crisis. During the crisis, Warsh
served as Wall Street's personal liaison on the Fed Board as 8 million
workers lost their jobs, 10 million people were being thrown out of
their homes, and many more saw their life savings vanish. Mr. Warsh's
No. 1 priority? Not those families. Not those workers. Mr. Warsh's No.
1 priority was the big banks that crashed our economy. He worked
tirelessly to orchestrate multibillion-dollar Wall Street bailouts. But
Mr. Warsh says today he has ``no regrets.''
After the crash, most people on the Fed saw the economic devastation
and said: Now might be a good time to lower interest rates to revive
the economy and help get people back to work.
Not Mr. Warsh. Nope. He wanted to keep interest rates high--``no
regrets''--and he kept pushing for higher interest rates for more than
a decade even as our economy struggled.
When the job of Fed Chair became available during Trump's first term
as President, Donald Trump passed him by. Now, Mr. Warsh chalked this
up to his refusal to ``put [his] ambitions ahead of [his] principles.''
Well, Mr. Warsh decided not to make that mistake the second time
around. As soon as Donald Trump became President a second time, Mr.
Warsh began shouting from the rooftops that the Fed should cut interest
rates. In exchange for abandoning his principles, the President offered
Mr. Warsh his dream job.
Look, red lights are flashing all across our economy. American
families are struggling. Republicans will come to regret their decision
to aid and abet President Trump's Fed takeover by installing Mr. Warsh
as Chair.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Kevin Warsh's
nomination to serve as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I am not
persuaded, based on his record and his testimony at his hearing before
the Senate Banking Committee, that he has demonstrated the independence
or the judgment this position requires.
The Federal Reserve has a statutory dual mandate: maximum employment
to support jobs and price stability to avoid excessive inflation. To
carry out that mandate effectively, markets need confidence that
monetary policy decisions are being made on the basis of
[[Page S2258]]
economic evidence, not on the basis of political pressure or
convenience.
That is especially important now as prices are rising too fast and
President Trump is still demanding a big cut in interest rates. In
fact, just yesterday, a Washington Post headline read ``Iran war pushed
inflation to highest rate in nearly three years.''
We know our constituents are feeling these rapid price increases
around the country--at the gas pump, at the kitchen table, farmers
across the country with higher input costs. So there is no doubt that
the illegal Iran war is driving prices up, and that comes on top of the
continued upward inflationary pressure from the President's failed
tariff tax policies, which continue to work their way through the
system and put upward pressure on prices.
So illegal tariff taxes and the illegal war in Iran and other
policies the President is pursuing are making life simply unaffordable
for our fellow Americans. Yet, when he was faced with the prospect of
carrying out that dual mandate free of political interference from the
White House, Mr. Warsh's record and his responses to questions raised
very serious concerns.
When he served as a Federal Reserve Governor during the financial
crisis and its aftermath, he was a consistent inflation hawk,
supporting higher interest rates. He did that even as unemployment then
approached 10 percent and the country was in the middle of the worst
economic downturn since the Great Depression. Despite that loss of jobs
and high unemployment, Mr. Warsh repeatedly focused instead on
inflation risks.
At a 2009 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee--that is the
committee that sets interest rates--Mr. Warsh said he was ``more
concerned about upside risks to inflation than downside risks''--again,
at a time of very high unemployment.
He also argued publicly against quantitative easing--the policy that
Chairman Bernanke put in place to lower long-term borrowing costs and
support economic recovery.
So just to step back here, at a time when unemployment was near 10
percent, as Americans faced the great recession, Mr. Warsh was a hawk,
pushing for higher interest rates over more near-term relief for
American families. That was his position when the economy was weakest,
weaker than it had been in generations, when millions of Americans were
out of work.
But these days--these days--Mr. Warsh has had a complete conversion,
a 180-degree flip. He is now a super dove on interest rates even as
unemployment has recovered from the depths of the great recession, and,
in fact, today, prices are too high. That is a situation where textbook
economics would say that the big rate cuts demanded by President Trump
will make inflation worse; they will make life even more unaffordable
for the American people. Prices will keep going up.
Now Mr. Warsh says that rapid productivity gains, particularly from
artificial intelligence, could justify easier monetary policy without
reigniting inflation. Economists across the spectrum are overwhelmingly
skeptical of this theory, especially when you look at the near- and
midterms--certainly not something that would happen by the end of this
year, and it is the end of this year where President Trump is demanding
big interest rates. In fact, President Trump has repeatedly and
publicly demanded sharply lower rates. We have seen him harangue the
Federal Reserve over and over and over. And Mr. Warsh's views have
conveniently moved in exactly that direction.
That doesn't automatically disqualify him, but it does create a very
legitimate question: Is this a genuine change in economic judgment or
is it a shift that reflects the preferences of the President who
nominated him--specifically, a President who has been abusing his power
to influence monetary policy and to strip the Fed of its independence;
a President who has launched an unprecedented assault on the Fed,
trying to fire Governor Lisa Cook, trying to concoct charges against
Chairman Powell to push him out of the Federal Reserve. President Trump
is doing all of this to try to get lower interest rates and much lower
interest rates now.
It wasn't a secret that Donald Trump was looking for a Chair who
would implement his preferences, who would lower interest rates
significantly in the short term. And all of a sudden--all of a sudden--
on his nomination-day conversion or just preceding that as he was
auditioning, Mr. Warsh now seems to think that is appropriate despite
his clear prior views.
That question became even more concerning during the Banking and
Housing Committee hearing. I asked Mr. Warsh a straightforward question
about monetary policy.
President Trump has called for a massive rate cut--below 1 percent--
by the end of this year, so I asked Mr. Warsh whether a rate cut of
that scale in an economy with steady growth and inflation already above
target--whether that would likely put upward pressure on prices. Right?
This is a simple, basic economics question, and he would not answer the
question directly.
As I said, the basic framework is clear: Lower rates stimulate
demand. If demand rises faster than supply, inflationary pressures
increase, costs for families go up. That is Economics 101. If a nominee
for Fed Chair will not directly acknowledge that basic relationship in
a public hearing before this body, it is reasonable to ask whether he
is avoiding an answer because it conflicts with the policy direction
favored by the White House, favored by President Trump.
Now, colleagues, our economy works best when the Chairman of the
Federal Reserve implements monetary policy based on their reading of
the data, not on the reading of politics. And I am concerned about
whether Mr. Warsh meets that standard because we have seen these
questions of independence raised even more dramatically under this
administration than any before.
And against that backdrop, members of the committee asked Mr. Warsh
direct questions. We asked: Would he step down if pressured by the
President over monetary policy?
We asked: Would he resist efforts to manipulate the composition or
decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee?
We asked: Would he clearly reject political pressure on reserve bank
leadership?
And over and over, Mr. Warsh refused to give direct answers.
I believe Americans deserve clarity about whether Mr. Warsh is
committed to standing up for the Fed at a time of unprecedented attacks
and political pressure from the White House.
And based on his record and his flip-flops and his answers to the
Senate Banking Committee, I remain unconvinced. I hope, if confirmed,
he proves my concerns wrong. I hope he does act independently, and I
hope he makes decisions based on facts and evidence, even when those
decisions conflict with the President's preferences.
But on the record before us today, I cannot support this nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Whistleblowers
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am here in the Senate about the
Democrat Judiciary Committee minority in the House of Representatives.
They wrote a letter on May 12 of this year that I found to be more
than troubling. That letter made disgraceful and wrongful accusations
regarding this Senator's helping many FBI whistleblowers.
For the entirety of this Congress, I have been open and very public
about my efforts to help whistleblowers. Accordingly, the timing of
this letter, so late after settlements occurred in August of 2025, is
suspect. If concerns existed, why were they not raised last year?
I have seen a lot, in my time serving the people of Iowa, but this
attack on this Senator and my office and whistleblowers is beyond the
pale.
Now, you have often heard me say on the Senate floor, over many
years, that I feel like honest whistleblowers are treated like a skunk
at a picnic. Oftentimes, their only crime is telling the truth. And for
telling the truth, they often lose their job. They are hurt
professionally, and it discourages other people who want to tell the
truth about wrongdoing in government from coming forth. That is why
whistleblowers deserve the protection that I and other Senators give
them.
So getting back to that letter, this letter from the minority calls
my office's efforts to obtain a fix for whistleblowers who faced years
of retaliation
[[Page S2259]]
and financial ruin--that letter called it a ``shakedown scheme.''
The Democrats are dead wrong about what they said, and if they had a
sliver of integrity, they would retract that letter. This isn't the way
to handle disagreements.
But what is there to disagree with? Patriotic whistleblowers had
wrongs against them righted, and I helped make their case right.
This should be a bipartisan celebration, especially since some of
these whistleblowers weren't pro-President Trump.
The letter also notes that some of the whistleblowers were properly
disciplined, as if suffering retaliation is OK.
The letter further notes:
The record definitively shows that the agents weren't
disciplined for making protected disclosures to Congress or
for the imaginary offense of being a Republican.
Now, even publications in this town--and I am going to quote
POLITICO.
POLITICO noted in their article:
Judiciary Democrats did not provide supporting
documentation for the sources of some of their claims.
As an example of how far off base the letter is, one FBI official who
was wrongly accused of being a part of a January siege was cleared by
the inspector general. His clearance was restored. He got his job back.
The FBI Security Division had ignored photo and video evidence
supporting that whistleblower's claim.
Indeed, the whistleblower's lawyers have publicly defended their
client, noting:
No classified leaks. No criminal conduct.
But the records happen to exist, just not the ones that the Democrats
want to talk about.
The lawyers for the whistleblowers rightly said the following,
publicly:
It's common practice for Federal Agencies to settle legal
or administrative complaints against them, which virtually
all the whistleblowers had against the FBI at the time of
settlements.
Those lawyers also noted that they published hundreds of pages
``documenting the flaws in FBI actions against employees'':
In fact, two of our clients who received settlements were
FBI Security Division employees retaliated against for
exposing the FBI's use of the security clearance process for
reprisal also against other Empower Oversight clients--a
wrong even the Biden-era FBI recognized when it reinstated
Marcus Allen's security clearance.
President Trump's Justice Department and the FBI should get credit
for righting the wrongs against these additional whistleblowers.
And what the Democrats did with this letter may cause tremendous
damage to whistleblower reputations for getting the facts wrong.
At my direction, my staff did what many in this town don't
understand. When whistleblowers step up to the plate, you have to fight
for them. So that is exactly what my office did, and I am not going to
back down one bit and let brave individuals suffer more years of ruin.
And I am certainly not going to apologize for fighting and winning for
whistleblowers.
That doesn't always mean that every whistleblower is going to get the
satisfaction and settlement that he or she deserves. But that effort to
get them justice must be made, and I make it clear to all of my staff
that they must do what they can to get the job done of protecting
whistleblowers--in other words, give the effort of protecting
whistleblowers the ``old college try.'' That is what the taxpayers
expect, and that is my reputation as a whistleblower defender.
I have made a career out of protecting and defending whistleblowers;
and never in my time have I, my staff, or my whistleblowers received
more attacks for doing that job than in this Congress.
I encourage all whistleblower groups in this town to stand up to what
is happening here, just as I stood up for whistleblowers throughout the
decades--no matter who they blow the whistle on, Republican or Democrat
administrations--whether that is disagreeing with this administration
about Mr. Reuveni being a real whistleblower or defending the Ukraine
whistleblower, years ago.
In conclusion, I will note that the Democrat letter said:
The treasury isn't a personal checkbook for ideological
payouts, and the misuse of millions of dollars in taxpayer
resources for personal or political benefit is a felony.
Did the Democrats forget about FBI Agent Peter Strzok reportedly
receiving $1.2 million or Lisa Page receiving $800,000 from the Biden
Department of Justice after the damage that they did to this country?
Or were they covering up again for a disastrous Biden-Harris
administration?
For God and country, this Senator will never stop fighting for
whistleblowers.
I yield the floor.
Nomination of Kevin Warsh
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the President of the United States,
there are few decisions more important than nominating leaders of
integrity and good judgment to hold trusted positions in office. And
few of those trusted positions are more important than the Chair of the
Federal Reserve. Those words were uttered by President Trump during his
first term when he announced Jerome Powell as his nominee to Chair the
Fed. How times have changed.
During his tenure, Chair Powell served with competency and dignity as
he navigated the economic problems of our time, from the COVID-19
pandemic to rapidly rising inflation. Yet he also faced a challenge
unlike any other Chair in history: a sham legal battle waged by the
very President who nominated him. To President Trump, it seems that
exercising good judgment does not mean reliance on the economic facts
and data, but instead obedience to his every demand.
Because of Chair Powell's refusal to kowtow, Donald Trump has
weaponized the Department of Justice to pressure, belittle, and
threaten him. I want to commend Chair Powell for standing firm in the
face of the President's tirades. It is not easy to face Trump's
vengeful wrath, and it is indefensible that DOJ has kept open the
possibility of pursuing these baseless, politicized charges in the
future.
But Mr. Powell's term as Chair expires on Friday, and President Trump
seems determined to nominate a Chair who will do his bidding, instead
of one who is independently minded. Earlier this year, President Trump
nominated Kevin Warsh to lead the Fed after Powell's departure. Mr.
Warsh previously served as member of the Board of Governors from 2006
through 2011 as a Bush appointee.
Warsh's actions during that time raise cause for concern: Mr. Warsh
played a central role in arranging numerous multibillion-dollar bank
bailouts, while warning against interest rate cuts even as unemployment
soared. He has expressed no regrets about these bailouts and continues
to support Trump's Wall Street deregulatory agenda. We already have
seen the damage across our government, from the Department of Justice
to Health and Human Services, that Trump loyalists can wreck. We cannot
allow that chaos in our central bank.
America's economy is trusted by the world because of the belief that
our economic policies are determined by facts not politics. Warsh
threatens to undermine that.
When President Trump asks him to juice the economy by lowering
interest rates, even if it raises inflation, will Warsh have the
courage to say no? When one of the President or his allies' many shady
business ventures fail, will Warsh stand strong amid pressure to
provide a taxpayer funded bailout? When the chips are down, will Warsh
make the decisions that best benefit his country or the President who
picked him? Warsh's record and his answers at his confirmation hearing
indicate the answers are no. Americans are struggling more than ever to
afford basic goods, from housing, to gas, to groceries. Yesterday, data
showed that Trump's war of choice in Iran has caused inflation to reach
3.8 percent, the highest in 3 years. Working families deserve a central
bank that will fight for them, not the President and his billionaire
buddies.
I am not convinced that Mr. Warsh has the willingness to do what is
best for the American people. For that reason, I will be voting no on
his nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 2
o'clock be called immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S2260]]
____________________