[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15098-15102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of Calendar 
No. 95, the nomination of Heath Tarbert to be Assistant Secretary of 
the Treasury, and Calendar No. 106, the nomination of Makan Delrahim to 
be Assistant Attorney General. I further ask that there be 5 hours of 
debate on the nominations, equally divided in the usual form, and that 
following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on 
confirmation of the nominations in the order listed, with no 
intervening action or debate, and that if confirmed, the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery Effort

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in the last 24 hours since I came to 
the floor to talk about Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, there 
has been progress but far less progress than is necessary at this 
critical time of humanitarian crisis, when the people of those islands 
literally face a chasm, a deepening canyon of needs and challenges.
  Over the next 24 hours, over the next 24 days, over the next 24 
months, this crisis must be met with a strategy, an overarching plan, a 
Marshall Plan for Puerto Rico that commits the resources unequivocally 
and unambiguously, making sure we match the depth of this crisis with a 
magnitude of resources and commitment that is needed and deserved. That 
kind of response, which has been lacking so far, is absolutely 
necessary for the hope of Puerto Rico because as the threats of disease 
and contaminated water increase, not to mention the lack of proper 
medicine, healthcare, roads, transportation and communication, food, 
water, medicine, basic necessities rise on that island, the people of 
Puerto Rico will lose trust and confidence in fellow Americans that 
must do more. We need to give them the hope they deserve, and that hope 
has to be more than rhetoric and more than patting ourselves on the 
back as the President has done. It has to be a real commitment.
  In fact, there is no reason for back-patting. The response so far has 
been inadequate, lacking the full attention and commitment that is 
needed. It has been a story of inattention and inadequate strategy so 
far to meet this deepening humanitarian crisis.
  The people of Texas, Florida, and throughout the gulf coast and the 
Southeast who have been affected by the storms have received the full 
commitment of America. It is what we owe our fellow Americans. That 
same commitment is owed to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. We saw 
an immediate disaster response there that must also be devoted to 
Puerto Rico. The emergency aid and full funding made to the victims of 
those storms in the gulf coast and Florida must be given to Puerto 
Rico, and I am hopeful that a relief bill will be fashioned this week.
  I am also hopeful that the financial control board that has 
responsibility for Puerto Rico's internal finances can be given the 
flexibility and that the Government of Puerto Rico will be given the 
flexibility that is needed to deal with this disaster--nothing less 
than a full court press, a full plan and strategy, and a plan that 
directly addresses the needs of Puerto Rico in so many areas.
  On transportation, what is the plan to ensure that basic goods can 
move from one end of the island to another? Right now the roads are 
unusable. By all accounts, getting things across the island by road is 
impossible. Radar and navigation systems at the airports are down. The 
transportation mechanism of the island is literally ripped apart. So 
potable water, food, and fuel are impossible to move where they need to 
go. That state of affairs is inadequate and unacceptable in America in 
2017.
  Electricity and power are disrupted across the island. What will be 
done to restore power and electricity throughout the island? What will 
be done to make sure that diesel is available there and in the Virgin 
Islands? Many of the machines essential for lifesaving at the hospitals 
cannot be powered by generators alone. That state of affairs is 
inadequate and unacceptable in America in 2017.
  All five of the hospitals in Arecibo, one of Puerto Rico's largest 
cities, are without power. Many other hospitals are shuttered as well. 
Clinics are closed.
  Mosquito-borne diseases are a real and present danger. Deadly 
ailments in contaminated food and water may cause serious and possibly 
deadly diseases. As these diseases spread, what is the plan to stop 
this kind of inadequacy? It is unacceptable in America in 2017.
  As to communications, or the basic ability to talk to each other, to 
reassure each other, and to know what is going on with relatives and 
loved ones and friends--no wonder that angst and alarm are spreading 
beyond Puerto Rico to Connecticut, where those relatives and friends 
live now--this kind of lack of communication is unacceptable in America 
in 2017. What is the plan to correct it?
  On public safety, looting and theft are becoming more prevalent. As 
the days drag on, law and order will deteriorate unless public safety 
is addressed more effectively.
  There is another kind of challenge. A dam that is about to burst and 
could cause havoc in surrounding areas is a clear and present safety 
danger that illustrates again the weakness of Puerto Rico's 
infrastructure.
  Towns throughout the island have suffered severe flooding. So housing 
and basic shelter are inadequate. What is the plan to rebuild?
  Payment for medicines cannot be made unless cash is available, and 
the lack of electricity means that the ATM machines are not working. If 
there is no cash for residents to buy basic goods, including food and 
water, how does the administration plan to solve this problem? This 
kind of inadequacy is unacceptable in America in 2017.
  Rebuilding will require a long-term commitment. It will require a 
plan and a strategy, not just over the next 24 hours or 24 days but 24 
months and longer. It must deal with a financial situation that is a 
storm of its own.
  As I described it yesterday, this storm is not a natural disaster. It 
is a manmade disaster, the result of healthcare and tax programs that 
are beyond any fault of the people of Puerto Rico. It is not of their 
doing.
  Vast swaths of resources have been swept away in Puerto Rico, 
including many of the attractions important for Puerto Rico's tourist 
industry. The same is true, for example, on the island of St. John in 
the Virgin Islands. Tourism is a key component of Puerto Rico's 
economy. It may take years and possibly decades to restore. What is the 
long-term plan? What is the strategy for Puerto Rico and for the Virgin 
Islands? There needs to be a kind of Marshall Plan for rebuilding 
because the devastating damage done is no less than what Europe 
suffered as a result of World War II. We have an obligation--certainly, 
no less than rebuilding

[[Page 15099]]

our European allies--to restore and rebuild Puerto Rico.
  All of these natural disasters and the financial manmade storm come 
as Puerto Rico continues to endure the struggles of its internal 
financial commitments that are necessary for the lifeblood of the 
economy. Jobs and economic progress must be the end goal.
  With so many questions about the President's plan or lack of plan, I 
am struck by the need for this body and this Congress to take the 
initiative. I think we will need to begin action, begin hearings, and 
begin a process of building a plan if the administration fails to 
present it.
  I believe, too, that we share so much with the island of Puerto Rico 
in people who have come to Connecticut and other parts of the country 
that we will find a ready and enthusiastic audience and support for 
such an effort.
  In the past 2 days, after silence through much of it about Puerto 
Rico, the President seemed to blame the island itself, its financial 
struggle, other storms, and even the size of the ocean. There should be 
no excuses. There must be a call to action.
  I thank the Coast Guard, our military, the first responders, the 
rescuers, and relief organizations--from Americares to the Red Cross to 
Save the Children--that have devoted so much and given so much in these 
times of crisis. They have been stretched thin. They have performed 
with courage and generosity and so have the donors who have come 
forward in Connecticut and around the country. People are calling my 
office asking what they can do for the people of Florida and the gulf 
coast and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. They are all fellow 
Americans, and we owe it to them to do more and do better to make sure 
that we keep faith with our fellow Americans.
  I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to talk about this 
subject.


                         Nomination of Ajit Pai

  Mr. President, I want to express as well my concern regarding the 
renomination of Ajit Pai to be Chairman of the Federal Communications 
Commission. I will oppose his nomination. As much as I respect his 
background and his achievements, his intelligence and ability, I 
believe that, during his tenure over the past year, he has taken one 
step after another that is contrary to the public interest. He has 
launched an attack on net neutrality, and he is working adamantly for 
undoing the open internet order.
  The open internet order was established based on 10 years of evidence 
about how the internet has changed, and it was most recently fully 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in June 2016. 
The most recent evidence shows that net neutrality has not inhibited 
network investment at all, in contrast to Chairman Pai's claim.
  On broadband privacy, Chairman Pai forcefully advocated in support of 
efforts to rescind the FCC's broadband privacy rules, a blatant attack 
on consumer privacy rights--all the more striking in light of recent 
dramatic concerns about privacy. Signing up for the internet should not 
mean that you have to sign away your rights to privacy, and that is why 
it is so important to have baseline privacy and data security rules 
that our broadband providers subscribe to, observe, and follow.
  Earlier this year, Senate Republicans gave broadband providers a 
green light to sell sensitive personal information to the highest 
bidder--a move that came with cheers of support from Chairman Pai. By 
supporting this measure, I think Chairman Pai raised severe doubts 
about his commitment to the average American consumer.
  One of Chairman Pai's first actions after his designation as chairman 
was to direct the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau to overturn an 
order designating nine wireless companies to provide lifeline broadband 
service through the USF Lifeline Program, despite the assertion that 
his foremost goal was to close the internet and digital divide. I 
strongly criticized this decision and led a letter to Chairman Pai 
expressing that this action not only forfeits and affects these 
providers consumers' interests, but it may also have a chilling effect 
on other broadband providers that were interested in participating in 
the Lifeline broadband program. This action would limit choice and 
increase the cost of service for the lifeline participants.
  Finally, as Chairman of the FCC, Mr. Pai has a duty to review whether 
Sinclair's proposal to acquire Tribune Media complies with the FCC's 
broadcast media ownership rules and serves the public interest by 
promoting localism and diversity. Rather than scrutinizing this deal as 
closely and carefully as I believe he should, Mr. Pai has focused his 
efforts on loosening restrictions to enable the deal. This transaction 
not only blatantly violates existing rules, but it also abridges 
existing FCC policy. Those policies were just recently scrapped under 
Mr. Pai's watch.
  This action can only be explained by interest in prioritizing the 
demands of Sinclair over the public interest. It also is no surprise 
that this decision happened just days before he had a meeting with the 
chairman of Sinclair.
  Every market impacted by this megamerger would experience a reduction 
in responsive local news due to Sinclair's unresponsive, top-down 
approach--denigrating diversity, diminishing our already distorted 
civic discourse, and devaluing local voices of women and people of 
color. Today, I sent a letter to Chairman Pai to let him know that 
blessing a media behemoth such as Sinclair-Tribune would reflect an 
abject failure on his part to protect the public interest and to uphold 
the FCC's duty to promote localism and diversity. Localism needs 
responsiveness to local interests, local news, and local voices. That 
is a trust the FCC has by its own rules and as a matter of public 
interest.
  Today we rely more than ever on the internet for so many facets of 
our everyday life: freedom of expression, education, healthcare, 
housing, entertainment, and more. Consumers need a champion that will 
be their voice at a time when so often the public interest is drowned 
by moneyed interests and special interests.
  Chairman Pai, far from our champion, seems to be more a servant of 
those interests. American consumers deserve better. My hope is, the 
President will nominate someone who can better serve those interests.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Massachusetts.


                          Delrahim Nomination

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, our economy is in trouble. In markets all 
across our economy, a few giant corporations hold all the power. It is 
everywhere. Four airlines control over 80 percent of all domestic 
airline seats in America. Five health insurance giants own over 80 
percent of the health insurance market. Four companies dominate over 80 
percent of the beef market. Three drugstore chains control almost all 
retail pharmacies in the country. Two companies sell more than 70 
percent of the beer in America.
  As competition has been snuffed out in industry after industry, big 
corporations have made out like bandits, and everyone else has paid the 
price. How do we pay? American families shell out more for lower 
quality goods. Small businesses find it harder and harder to compete 
against the big guys. Innovators and entrepreneurs struggle to promote 
new ideas that can change the world. Income inequality has left more 
American families struggling to make ends meet as the top 1 percent has 
grown even richer and richer. As fewer companies have seized more 
economic power, they have translated their economic muscle into 
political power--power they can use to elect the politicians they like, 
get the kinds of laws and policies they like, and run up even more 
economic power.
  It is a nasty, self-perpetuating cycle, and it is exactly why 
Congress created antitrust laws over a century ago. Back then, like 
today, a few powerful companies were stifling competition in markets 
all across the economy and gaining extraordinary political power. 
Congress decided to create laws to break up trusts and protect 
competition.

[[Page 15100]]

  Today the Justice Department's Antitrust Division is charged with 
protecting competition by blocking anti-competitive mergers and going 
after companies that engage in illegal conduct. For decades, though, 
antitrust enforcers have put their tools on the shelf instead of 
aggressively enforcing our antitrust laws, they have given the green 
light to megamerger after megamerger and allowed big corporations to 
misuse this power without a peep.
  That problem is set to get worse in the Trump administration. Since 
taking office, President Trump has loaded his administration with a 
Who's Who of former lobbyists, Wall Street insiders, and corporate 
executives committed to tilting the scales even further in favor of his 
powerful friends and against American families.
  Now, President Trump has nominated someone to head the Justice 
Department's Antitrust Division. His nominee, Makan Delrahim, will be 
in charge of determining whether there is someone to stand up for 
competition or let the big guys just get bigger and more powerful. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Delrahim's approach to antitrust enforcement is 
based on a hands-off economic theory that just leaves big corporations 
to do pretty much whatever they want to do. Case in point, just last 
year, when asked what he thought about the proposed merger of AT&T-Time 
Warner--a merger that would combine two of the most powerful companies 
in media--Mr. Delrahim said he didn't think it was a ``major antitrust 
problem.''
  Mr. Delrahim spent over a decade working to convince government 
officials that other megamergers weren't antitrust problems. During the 
airline merger wave that left us with only four major carriers, Mr. 
Delrahim was lobbying the government to approve a merger between US 
Airways and Delta. Despite the fact that there are only a few large 
retail pharmacies, he lobbied to get government approval for CVS's 
proposed takeover of Caremark. Even though only five health insurers 
control the vast majority of the health insurance market, he tried to 
convince government regulators to approve Anthem's unsuccessful attempt 
to merge with Cigna.
  Now he wants to take a spin through the revolving door and regulate 
the industries he worked to make even less competitive. For the giant 
corporations, wealthy individuals who want to amass more power and 
profits for themselves, Mr. Delrahim is a dream candidate, but he is 
also a dream candidate for President Trump. President Trump has not 
been shy about his willingness to use his power against individuals or 
companies he doesn't like, and he has made it clear that he expects his 
agency heads to carry out his orders.
  Mr. Delrahim has been a loyal supporter of President Trump's since 
the campaign. He urged fellow Republicans to support President Trump 
because he correctly believed President Trump would appoint a pro-
corporate Justice to the Supreme Court. He also served as legal counsel 
to President Trump after he was sworn in and as the President reversed 
rules that made it easier for families to pay their mortgages or 
reversed rules to prevent people with serious mental illnesses from 
buying guns or reversed rules to stop companies from dumping toxic 
waste into water. As head of the Antitrust Division, Mr. Delrahim will 
be in a position to make even more harmful decisions.
  It is no secret that Americans don't trust Washington. They see 
politicians who care more about catering to corporate donors than 
fighting for the interests of hard-working people who are trying to 
figure out how to pay the bills and build a little security in their 
own lives. It is a real problem, but it is a problem we can solve. We 
can begin to solve it by fighting the economic concentration that is 
putting more money and more power into the hands of a few giant 
corporations. That means choosing enforcers who will hold companies 
accountable when they break the rules, and that means rejecting 
nominees like Makan Delrahim.


                           Tarbert Nomination

  Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Heath Tarbert, 
who has been nominated by President Trump to be the Assistant Secretary 
of the Treasury for International Markets and Development. If 
confirmed, Mr. Tarbert will be in charge of the Treasury Department's 
role on a multi-agency body called the Committee on Foreign Investment 
in the United States, or CFIUS, which reviews whether foreign 
acquisitions of a U.S. company would pose a threat to our national 
security and then makes recommendations to the President on whether the 
President should block the transaction.
  This is not about whether foreign investment benefits our economy. Of 
course it does. The United States is the third largest recipient of 
foreign direct investment, and our markets attract the world's best 
talent and capital. Going back to the 1990s, only four foreign 
acquisitions of American companies have ever been blocked by a 
President based on a recommendation of the Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States. This is about whether our national 
security is put at risk when foreign governments, foreign state-owned 
enterprises, and foreign investors acquire our companies and assets. 
This is also about foreign governments and the companies they own, 
trying to gain access to sensitive technologies that are important to 
our military and our national security.
  The risk posed to the security of the United States is real. I want 
you to consider just one example here. According to a news report last 
year, an internal Pentagon report found that China was making 
significant targeted investments in cutting-edge American startups, 
with expertise in areas like autonomous vehicles, artificial 
intelligence, and robotics. These can be transactions that don't 
necessarily result in foreign control over one of our companies, but 
they can give a foreign adversary access to technologies that could 
harm our strategic interests and erode our military advantage.
  The risk is significant, but unfortunately CFIUS does not apply to 
these transactions. The problem is, CFIUS was created back in 1975. 
Since then, both technology and the nature of foreign acquisitions, 
mergers, and takeovers have changed substantially. The nature of the 
threats we face has also changed substantially. Our top military 
leaders--such as the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs--believe that CFIUS needs to be updated to fully address them, 
and I agree.
  Another concern is that CFIUS does not focus enough on whether the 
benefits of foreign acquisition outweigh the costs when it comes to the 
competitiveness of American workers. While I recognize that CFIUS has 
historically focused on the national security impacts of foreign 
investment, I think Congress should consider elevating the Department 
of Labor to the group of agencies that are currently part of the core 
CFIUS review process. If we believe economic security and national 
security are intertwined, then I think we can both look out for the 
American worker and review the national security threats posed by 
foreign acquisitions.
  Finally, the ethics problems that are everywhere in this 
administration come forward again in the area of national security. We 
all know President Trump, his family members, and other Trump 
administration officials have business ties in the United States and 
throughout the world, even if we don't know the full extent of 
President Trump's business ties because he will not release his tax 
returns.
  Imagine a Trump administration official who has a financial stake in 
an American company, a foreign state-owned company or both. Now imagine 
that a foreign company backed by China, Russia, or another foreign 
adversary tries to acquire a U.S. company and a Trump official suddenly 
has financial ties to that transaction and then that transaction 
triggers a CFIUS review for national security concerns. If that 
scenario were to occur, I am deeply concerned about the conflicts of 
interests that could emerge. I would expect CFIUS to vigorously review 
such an investment as it affects our national security.
  I raised all of these issues with Mr. Tarbert when I met with him 
today

[[Page 15101]]

and his answers improved from when I asked him about these issues 
earlier this year, but I remain concerned about his commitment to 
modernize CFIUS and to ensure that CFIUS does more to consider the 
impact of foreign acquisitions on American workers. I hope I am wrong, 
but I still have concerns about his nomination, which is why I will 
vote against it.
  Mr. Tarbert promised me that if confirmed, he would work to ensure 
that no transaction is approved by CFIUS if national security concerns 
remain unresolved, and that is encouraging to hear. If he is ultimately 
confirmed, I will use my position in the Senate Banking Committee to 
hold him to that promise because the threats we face are growing in 
complexity, and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
States must be ready to confront them. We don't want to wake up one day 
and discover that our adversaries have access to key components of our 
national security technology because Congress and the White House were 
asleep at the wheel.
  If confirmed, I will work in good faith with Mr. Tarbert to ensure 
that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is 
updated so it is in the strongest position to protect our national 
security--both from the threats we face today and the threats we will 
face in the future.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Mr. Heath Tarbert to be Assistant Secretary of the 
Treasury for International Markets and Development. This position is 
both a critical national security and international economic policy 
job.
  A critical part of the Assistant Secretary's job--and the reason for 
which this position was created by statute and passed in the Banking 
Committee--is to marshal the procedures and processes of the 
interagency, Treasury-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
States, or CFIUS, which protects our Nation from hostile foreign 
transactions designed to undermine U.S. national security interests.
  This is now a very time-sensitive post because Senators on both sides 
of the aisle are working to introduce legislation to change the CFIUS 
process for the first time in a decade.
  Confirmation of Mr. Tarbert is critical so that he is available to 
provide necessary input on any proposed changes and to swiftly 
implement any new legislation.
  Mr. Tarbert would also serve as the principal policy advisor to the 
Secretary on international economic matters, including serving as the 
Treasury's representative at the Financial Stability Board.
  Finally, Mr. Tarbert has strong bipartisan support and was voice-
voted out of the Banking Committee.
  Mr. Tarbert has served in senior roles in all three branches of 
government and is an experienced lawyer and a recognized financial 
expert.
  In short, he is an important asset whom the Congress and Treasury 
Department do not want to lose to further delay.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Tarbert's nomination today 
and to vote for his confirmation.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                          Delrahim Nomination

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is voting to confirm 
Makan Delrahim to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the 
Antitrust Division. When Mr. Delrahim was 10 years old, his family fled 
the tyranny of Iran and settled in the United States, knowing no 
English. Since then, Mr. Delrahim received his B.S. from the University 
of California in 1991, his J.D. from the George Washington University 
School of Law in 1995, and his M.S. from Johns Hopkins University in 
2002.
  Mr. Delrahim's professional career and broad range of legal 
experiences have prepared him well to lead the Antitrust Division. He 
has experience in both the private and public sectors. He has worked at 
various law firms and served in government, including as staff director 
to then-Chairman Hatch of the Senate Judiciary Committee, deputy 
counsel to the President of the United States, and Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General of the Antitrust Division at the Department of 
Justice. He also served as a Commissioner of the U.S. Antitrust 
Modernization Commission.
  Mr. Delrahim will serve as the highest ranking Iranian-American 
official ever at the Department of Justice. His journey epitomizes the 
American dream. He is well known and liked by my colleagues and me. I 
am pleased to support his nomination today.
  Mr. CRAPO. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the confirmation of Makan Delrahim has been 
a top priority of mine. I know the man. He worked with us. He headed 
our Judiciary Committee staff. Amidst the rising controversy over 
antitrust law in the 21st century, he is precisely who we need in that 
position. I commend the President for having picked him.
  All of us, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, are 
going to make sure that our markets remain free and competitive. Cheap 
talking points are not going to cut it; only serious debate will.
  I am pleased that recent efforts to rise above the partisan fray and 
treat this subject with the seriousness it deserves have paid off 
today.
  I expect our colleagues to vote for Makan because of the high-quality 
lawyer he really is.
  I thank my colleagues for joining me in this debate. I congratulate 
Makan, who is sure to make us all very pleased with the way he can run 
things and the way he can begin this important work that he knows is 
important. We know it is important; I particularly know it is 
important.
  Makan has been an honest, decent, wonderful man. He is a good father. 
He has been a terrific staffer here on Capitol Hill. He has worked with 
both Democrats and Republicans in good faith. I think almost all of 
them, if they are honest, will say he was a very, very good person to 
work with and a wonderful person to fill this position.
  It is a blessing that someone like Makan, who comes from a very 
humble family, could rise to the top in this particular position in 
antitrust, and I am sure he will do an honest, decent job within the 
antitrust laws as they are configured and written.
  I am proud of him. I think the world of him. I hope everybody will 
vote for him. But if not, I will commend him, and I know he will do a 
good job in this particular position.
  Mr. President, 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Tarbert Nomination

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back all time on both sides, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Heath P. Tarbert, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of the 
Treasury?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the

[[Page 15102]]

Senator from Alabama (Mr. Strange), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. 
Young).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) 
and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Ex.]

                                YEAS--87

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hirono
     Markey
     Merkley
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cochran
     Donnelly
     Menendez
     Strange
     Young
  The nomination was confirmed.


                      Vote on Delrahim Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Makan Delrahim, of California, to be an 
Assistant Attorney General?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Strange), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Ex.]

                                YEAS--73

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--21

     Baldwin
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Kaine
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cochran
     Donnelly
     Menendez
     Strange
     Van Hollen
     Young
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________