[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15628-15632]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Quarles 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Randal Quarles, of 
Colorado, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 
1, 2004.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10 
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the nomination of 
Randal Quarles to help oversee the Federal Reserve System. Mr. Quarles 
is certainly eminently qualified to serve in this capacity in this 
important position. Through his long experience in public service and 
the private sector, Mr. Quarles has gained experience in financial 
regulation, economics, and the firsthand operations of financial 
institutions. He also has a proven track

[[Page 15629]]

record of leadership and policy management.
  The Fed's responsibilities are extensive, and they are varied, and 
the roles Mr. Quarles has been nominated for come during a unique 
period in the Fed's history. The years ahead will be decisive for the 
development of the Federal Reserve, the American economy, as well as 
domestic and international financial reform. It is paramount that the 
Fed be equipped with a well-rounded leadership team so it can meet the 
many challenges and opportunities of maintaining monetary and financial 
stability. I firmly believe that Mr. Quarles is an ideal fit to take on 
such responsibilities--for the success of the Federal Reserve and the 
good of our Nation.
  In closing, I applaud and strongly support the President's nominee to 
help oversee the Federal Reserve System. I know him personally. I know 
what a fine man he is. I know what an excellent leader he is. He will 
do a good job.
  Importantly, I would note that it is the intention to confirm Mr. 
Quarles to the position of Vice Chair for Supervision--another 
essential role.
  It is critical that Mr. Quarles begin his work at the Fed as soon as 
possible. There really is no time to waste. He will do a great job.
  (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I had expected to be able to 
vote today on the confirmation of Mr. Randal Quarles to be a member of 
the Federal Reserve. Instead, I am in Las Vegas, meeting with victims 
of and first responders to the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. 
history.
  On the question of Mr. Quarles's nomination, I want to make clear 
that I would have voted ``no'' had I been present. While an official in 
the Bush administration Treasury Department in the lead-up to the 
economic crisis of 2007 to 2009, Mr. Quarles failed to take action to 
prevent the build-up of risk that ultimately led to hundreds of 
thousands of foreclosures and evictions in Nevada. In fact, Mr. Quarles 
during that period repeatedly maintained that the financial system was 
safe, that large banks were well-capitalized, and that the housing 
market was strong, notwithstanding clear signs of escalating risk. 
After serving in the Treasury Department, Mr. Quarles was the 
beneficiary of the second-largest ``loss share'' agreement in the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's history. This agreement 
provided a taxpayer-backed guarantee and allowed Mr. Quarles to profit 
substantially off of the failure of a large bank.
  If confirmed, I hope that Mr. Quarles will exceed my expectations and 
become a strong advocate for a safe and resilient American financial 
system. However, I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm him given 
my concerns about his past record.
  Thank you.


                    NOMINATION OF LEE FRANCIS CISSNA

  Mr. President, I had expected to be able to vote today on the 
confirmation of Mr. Lee Francis Cissna, to be Director of the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS. Instead, I am in Las Vegas 
helping my constituents in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in 
modern American history.
  On the question of Mr. Cissna's nomination, I want to make my 
opposition to his confirmation clear. I do not believe Mr. Cissna to be 
qualified to lead the USCIS. This decision is based on his prior 
experience, as well as his testimony before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. Mr. Cissna stated during his confirmation hearing that he 
had a role on President Trump's transition team and he offered his 
``technical assistance'' in crafting some of the President's draconian 
immigration policies. Additionally, it is my belief that Mr. Cissna 
does not have the management experience necessary to oversee a large 
organization like the USCIS.
  If confirmed, I hope that Mr. Cissna will surpass my expectations and 
serve this country well as USCIS Director. The role of the USCIS in 
implementing and administering our immigration benefits is too 
important for any other result. I believe strongly in the importance of 
immigrants to the culture and economy of the United States, and I hope 
Mr. Cissna's actions as Director show that he agrees. However, I cannot 
in good conscience vote to confirm someone about whom I have so many 
concerns.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                        Las Vegas Mass Shooting

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as we continue to grieve with the people 
of Las Vegas and families of the injured and the deceased, when I think 
of the pictures I see of those beautiful young people who had the best 
of life ahead of them, we ache for them. But our thoughts must turn to 
action so this doesn't happen again.
  What can we do as a nation to change? Because surely when there are 
more mass shootings this year than there are the number of days this 
year, when we average more than one mass shooting per day, something 
has to change.
  I am sure that if you asked the grieving families whether they want 
the laws to change so this might not happen again, the overwhelming 
majority would say yes, they would want us to do something. If we could 
talk to those brave souls who were killed and are now in Heaven, they 
would say: Do something. They wouldn't say: Let's wait. They wouldn't 
say: Leave things alone. The fact that they were killed, the fact that 
there were so many injured--they wouldn't think it is political to try 
to save their lives or prevent somebody else from dying the way they 
did. So when folks say: Don't bring politics into this, that it is 
inappropriate, I am sure the families of the loved ones who were lost 
would agree with me that it is appropriate and important and necessary.
  Politics is where we are supposed to come together and debate the 
great problems of our time in order to find solutions to them. Politics 
is how we are supposed to make our country a better, safer, more 
prosperous place to live. And there is no more appropriate time than 
now to talk about the issue of gun violence.
  Yesterday, President Trump visited Las Vegas. I am glad he went to 
show our solidarity and remind everyone there that they have the full 
support of the Nation. But he didn't talk about guns. There is a huge 
opportunity he missed to lead this Nation in a reasonable, moderate 
debate on gun safety, but that opportunity is not over. The President 
still has the opportunity. All eyes are on the President to see if he 
will grasp the opportunity and lead the Nation to do something 
reasonable and moderate about guns and gun safety.
  President Trump, are you going to wait to hear what the NRA says 
first? Are you going to wait for the NRA to give you the green light? 
You ran your campaign saying you were beholden to no one. You fashion 
yourself as a strong man. Well, are you going to show that you are not 
beholden to anyone now? Are you going to show your strength now? Are 
you going to be the first Republican President in a generation to buck 
the NRA? You know what the right thing to do is.
  I say to President Trump: Come out and say that you support and would 
sign a law to ban bump stocks--the modification used by the Las Vegas 
gunman to make his weapons automatic. That is small, and it is the 
right thing to do. Don't wait for the NRA to make up their mind. Do it.
  Of course, banning bump stocks can't be our only response. It is 
hardly enough. Even though we should do whatever we can in this body in 
obeisance to the NRA, we must do more. Abandoning efforts to deregulate 
silencers would be the next step. The police were able to figure out 
where the gunman was because of the noise from his gun in the Mandalay 
Bay Hotel.

[[Page 15630]]

  Let's forget about implementing a national concealed carry 
reciprocity. My police officers in Times Square don't want to let 
someone who has had no check, who might have a mental derangement like 
Paddock, come to Times Square--and they can't do anything about it; 
that is what that law would do--or any other heavily populated place, 
the downtowns of many of our big cities and even medium-sized cities, 
Disney World, baseball games, football stadiums. If this concealed 
carry reciprocity passed, crazy people could carry weapons concealed 
into any football stadium in America, and the police couldn't check on 
them and see if they had a gun.
  We have to do these things. If you looked at what would be the most 
effective way in stopping the daily gun violence that is doable, the 
most important and attainable thing to do would be adopting universal 
background checks. It is common sense, it is measured, it is prudent, 
and it would be really effective.
  The bill Senator Murphy introduced yesterday is one I have been 
involved with for a long time, and we should see if we can get enough 
support to pass it. We can and should talk about these issues more. It 
requires only a modicum of moral and political coverage. President 
Trump and Republicans in Congress ought to show that moral and 
political courage now by bucking the NRA and engaging in a reasonable 
debate about commonsense gun laws.
  Fully automatic weapons are already illegal, made so by a law signed 
by President Reagan in 1986. Banning bump stocks is entirely consistent 
with the books. Senator Feinstein introduced a reasonable proposal. 
What are we waiting for, the NRA to give us a green light? That is so 
wrong.
  If the President and Congress are so beholden to the NRA that they 
can't do the very bare minimum--banning a device that allowed a shooter 
to kill 59 Americans with ease, a device whose ban would in no way 
infringe on the legitimate rights of gun owners--then our politics, our 
means of making this country a better and safer place, will have once 
again failed us.


          Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery Effort

  Mr. President, turning to the humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico and 
the U.S. Virgin Islands, yesterday, once again, Congress received a 
request from the administration for a supplemental aid package that 
will go to help Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other States 
hit by storms. It also includes some money for the Western States beset 
by wildfires.
  It is a good first step, but it is just the start of a long recovery 
and relief effort that will require additional aid from this Congress. 
While aid and resources are necessary now, these islands are just 
starting to assess the damage. Once they determine how devastating 
these storms actually were, we need to respond immediately to provide 
additional support and funds to assist their recovery and rebuilding, 
just as we have done for past storms and disasters. On this package, I 
have three points.
  First, I am urging my colleagues to add additional and vital flexible 
funding for recovery like the community development block grant. We 
gave CDBG to help Texas after Harvey. We can't deprive Puerto Rico and 
the Virgin Islands of this money.
  Second, I am warning my colleagues on the other side--particularly 
those in the House--not to attach any extraneous, ideological policy 
riders to this urgent aid package. Ideological policy changes to the 
Flood Insurance Program and forest management policies should come 
nowhere near this bill. They tried to do it last week in the FAA bill, 
and we had to send it back because of joint opposition, both sides of 
the aisle. Let's not go through that again. I thank our chairman of the 
Banking Committee for helping in that regard.
  Third, it has become clear that Puerto Rico's recovery will be 
further hindered by its ongoing debt crisis. That crisis, coupled with 
the devastation from Hurricane Maria, has led to growing concerns that 
the island will soon face a liquidity crisis. Simply put, the island is 
running out of money to pay for essential services like first 
responders, not to mention funds for rebuilding and recovery. The funds 
we hope to include in the disaster package are critical, but we have to 
make sure the island has enough cash to start the process. In FEMA, 
local governments often have to lay out the money first and then they 
get repaid, but Puerto Rico doesn't have the money to lay out so we 
have to deal with that issue to make it effective.
  With these issues in mind, we should act quickly on this supplemental 
aid, but it is just the beginning of Congress's aid to rebuild.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. President, finally, on the Republican tax plan, I have so much to 
say about this plan. It is so awful in so many ways: huge tax cuts for 
the wealthy and the powerful, raising taxes on middle-class people--
which I am going to talk about in a minute--blowing a huge hole in our 
deficit, and to fund the tax cuts for the rich, cutting Medicare and 
Medicaid by close to $1.5 trillion.
  We are all in favor of a serious tax reform debate. We have mentioned 
our guidelines: no tax cuts for the 1 percent, no increase in the 
deficit, and do it in a bipartisan way. The Republican plan does just 
the opposite. That is why Democrats are so opposed. It lavishes tax 
breaks on the rich, pays for it by cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and 
leaves everyone in the cold, except the very wealthy.
  Today I want to focus on one provision of the GOP tax plan: the 
repeal of the State and local tax deduction. The Republican plan raises 
taxes on millions of middle-class families across the country by 
repealing the State and local deduction. Forty-four million Americans 
take that deduction. That is about one in eight. It is about one in 
four or five families who take that deduction. One-third of all 
taxpayers take the deduction. It is almost one in three. They don't 
just get a few pennies back. They get several thousand dollars off 
their taxes each year. It is not just a rarified group in States like 
Massachusetts, New York, and California. The reason it brings in $1.3 
trillion is because it affects so many people throughout the entire 
country.
  If you do not believe me, look at the numbers. Look at these charts. 
I am posting the percentages for each State. Forty-six percent of the 
people in Maryland get an average deduction of $12,900. Connecticut 
gets 41 percent. I showed one of my colleagues that Virginia is higher 
than New York. Thirty-seven percent get an $11,000 deduction.
  Massachusetts, Oregon. To my colleagues from Utah, 35 percent of Utah 
taxpayers get an average deduction of $12,954. In Utah, they say: Well, 
the standard deduction makes up for it. With most families, the 
standard deduction will not because we are taking away the standard 
exemption so it is a wash if you are a family of three.
  Let's keep going. Minnesota and New York. I want to show my 
Republican colleagues how it would affect some of their States. Let's 
take Georgia. One-third of all taxpayers get an average break of 
$9,000. Look at these numbers, my colleagues. I am going to send them 
to every one of you. Look how it affects your State.
  Here we go. Iowa, 29 percent of all people get a $10,000 break, on 
average; Pennsylvania, 29 percent, an $11,000 break; Arizona, 28 
percent, a $7,000 break.
  My friend from Idaho, I didn't know he would be here, but his number 
on the chart--28 percent of Idahoans get an average of an $8,800 break. 
Do you want to take that away from them? The standard deduction doesn't 
make up for it if you have one child or more. Nebraska, 28 percent get 
an $11,000 deduction.
  By the way, these numbers come from a group that put it together, but 
it is from the IRS. These are IRS numbers.
  South Carolina, 27 percent, $8,000; Missouri, 26 percent, $9,800; 
Ohio, 26 percent, $10,000. Kentucky, my dear friend the Republican 
leader, in his State, 26 percent of the people--one out of four--get 
that State and local property deduction, averaging $9,995. Do you want 
to take that away?

[[Page 15631]]

  Alabama, where our dear friend the Presiding Officer is from, gets 26 
percent. One out of four of his constituents get an average break of 
$5,900. Kansas, 25 percent, gets an average break of $9,400.
  I am saying these numbers because our friends on the hard right, who 
just want to lower their own taxes, are telling everybody, oh, this is 
just in four States--Massachusetts, New York, California, New Jersey.
  No, it is across America.
  Let's keep going. I am having a good time. I hope you all are.
  Oklahoma, 24 percent of the people get an $8,000 break. I think this 
is Mississippi, 23 percent, gets a $6,300 break; Louisiana, 23 percent, 
close to one out of four, $6,700. Texas, the great State of Texas, 
where our majority whip comes from, 23 percent, close to one out of 
four Texans, get a $7,800 break. Indiana, 23 percent get an $8,700 
break; Florida, 22 percent get a $7,300 break. Wyoming--it wouldn't 
affect Wyoming because it is a rural State--22 percent get a $6,300 
break.
  The State that is least affected is still very affected. South Dakota 
and West Virginia, only 17 percent of the people get a $9,000 break in 
West Virginia and a $6,000 break in South Dakota. North Dakota, 
Tennessee, and Arkansas--21 percent, 19 percent, 18 percent breaks, 
between $4,900 and $6,800.
  The Achilles' heel of this bill--there are many--is State and local 
deductibility. It kills the middle class and the upper middle income 
people. It doesn't really affect the rich. They do not pay a lot of 
property taxes, the bulk of these deductions. They make their money in 
high-income places. They have a lot of stocks and a lot of bonds. It is 
the middle class and the upper middle class who get clobbered by this 
tax break. The standard deduction does not undo it because you lose the 
standard exemption. Even if you are just a husband and wife without 
kids--
  Mr. President, I am going to ask unanimous consent that the debate be 
delayed for a few minutes. I know my colleagues are--well, I just need 
to finish my remarks. I am almost done.
  The benefit of State and local deductibility affects every State, 
every city, every town, every municipality, and goes deep into the 
middle class and the working class.
  One other point I have to make, now realizing this, some of our 
Republican colleagues are saying we will modify it. Folks, there is no 
real way to modify the provision to eliminate State and local 
deductibility. If you want to give a choice that will not work--because 
for middle-class taxpayers, it is only the combination of their 
itemized deductions, such as State, local, mortgage, and others, that 
make it worth it for them to itemize.
  If you have to choose between the mortgage deduction and your 
property tax deduction, it is a loser. So they say: Well, we will just 
do this for the very rich. Yet, as I mentioned, that is not where the 
money is. Where are you going to cap it? It is mostly a middle-class 
deduction. If you cap it, say, for people whose incomes are above 
$500,000 or $1 million, you don't bring in much money. So it is a 
loser. You cannot fix it. Get rid of it. You cannot fix it. The plans 
that are being done still continue to hurt the middle class 
dramatically.
  The Republican plan to repeal State and local cannot be fixed, 
modified, or tweaked around the edges. Each of the proposals does not 
work. It must be scrapped. The State and local deduction affects 
everyone, even the almost one in five taxpayers in the lowest States 
where it affects the fewest people. It is just one of the many flaws in 
this broken, broken framework.
  Let's start over. Don't just do a Republican plan that appeals to the 
handful of very wealthy corporations and very wealthy individuals. Work 
with us on a fair plan that helps the middle class, not the very 
wealthy. We are ready, but if you do the same thing that you did on 
healthcare in trying to do it by yourselves, I think that you will meet 
with the same fate that the healthcare bill did.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Crapo 
and I both be allowed to speak for 5 minutes on the nomination of 
Randal Quarles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, every time President Trump has the choice 
between standing up for American families or standing up for wealthy 
banks and giant corporations, he chooses the rich guys.
  Time and again, he has promised that he would ``never be beholden to 
the lobbyists or the special interests,'' but he has appointed dozens 
of Big Business executives and lobbyists to senior positions in his 
administration. During his campaign, he promised that he would not let 
the Wall Street guys get away with murder, but after he was sworn in, 
he loaded up his economic team with Goldman Sachs executives. Over and 
over again, he has promised to drain the swamp, but then he appointed 
an army of lobbyists and industry insiders to positions that oversee 
the industries that paid them for years.
  Randal Quarles is just the latest in this long line of corporate 
appointments. He is President Trump's nominee to the Federal Reserve's 
Vice Chair for Supervision. He has gone through the revolving door so 
many times that it is hard to keep up--from a big Wall Street law firm, 
to the Treasury Department, back to the Wall Street law firm, back, 
eventually, to the Treasury Department, then to a private equity fund, 
followed most recently by a trip to another private equity fund. Now 
Mr. Quarles is ready for another spin through the revolving door.
  The Vice Chair for Supervision of the Fed is one of the most 
important jobs in the government. After the 2008 crisis, Congress put 
the Fed in charge of supervising the biggest banks. That included banks 
and other financial institutions that would bring down the whole 
financial system with them if they went under--the so-called ``too big 
to fail'' institutions. The Fed is what stands between millions of 
American families and another economic catastrophe that could rob them 
of their jobs, their savings, or their homes. After the 2008 crisis, 
Congress created the Vice Chair for Supervision position to lead 
efforts to supervise these giant institutions. There is no other 
position in government that has a more important role in stopping the 
next financial crisis.
  So what kind of supervision and oversight does Mr. Quarles believe 
in? His motto seems to be, ``Whatever the big banks want, give it to 
'em.''
  Mr. Quarles has spent more than a decade in private equity and 
investment management, where he has argued repeatedly for weaker rules 
for giant banks, including relaxing the rules for stress tests that 
evaluate banks' soundness, lowering capital and leverage standards, and 
repealing the Volcker rule.
  At his hearing before the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
Committee, I showed Mr. Quarles a 124-page list of financial rule 
rollbacks from a lobbying group for the biggest banks in the country. I 
asked him to tell me which of those dozens of changes he disagreed 
with. He couldn't name one--not one.
  The No. 1 thing that we need from a Vice Chair for Supervision is 
independence from Wall Street--a demonstrated willingness to stand up 
to the wishes of the big banks and protect the interests of working 
families. There is not a speck of independence in Mr. Quarles' track 
record.
  Mr. Quarles' time in government also raises red flags. As Under 
Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, he was responsible for 
overseeing financial institutions, markets, and regulations in the 
years leading up to the financial crisis. Let me say that again. Mr. 
Quarles was the Treasury official in charge of helping to oversee Wall 
Street in the years leading up to the crisis. Does anyone want to point 
out how that worked out?
  If Mr. Quarles had wanted to stand up to the banks, he could have 
found and fixed systemwide problems in the markets before catastrophe 
struck. Instead, in 2006, when the banks were

[[Page 15632]]

making gobs of money off of risky bets that eventually crashed the 
economy, Quarles gave a speech in front of a roomful of bankers and 
said: ``Fundamentally, the economy is strong, the financial sector is 
healthy, and our future''--the banks'--``looks bright.'' Less than 2 
years later, the entire system exploded and cost Americans, 
collectively, about $14 trillion.
  Make no mistake about it, confirming Mr. Quarles endangers the health 
of the economy. The last time that Mr. Quarles was in charge, he failed 
to act to protect the American people from the biggest recession since 
the Great Depression either because he missed the signs or because he 
deliberately ignored them. Either way, that makes him the wrong person 
for the job.
  American families deserve a strong leader as the Vice Chair for 
Supervision of the Fed who will fight hard to keep them safe. 
Everything we know about Mr. Quarles says that he will be fighting hard 
for the big banks. I will be voting no on Mr. Quarles' nomination, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of the 
Honorable Randal Quarles to be a member of the Board of Governors of 
the Federal Reserve System.
  Mr. Quarles has extensive government and private-sector experience 
dealing with both domestic and international financial markets. He is 
no stranger to public service in his having previously served in 
multiple top posts in the Treasury Department.
  Mr. Quarles has also been nominated to serve as the Vice Chairman for 
Supervision, a role that has never been officially filled. Instead, 
former Federal Governor Dan Tarullo has acted as the de facto Vice 
Chairman for Supervision in various ways, including by chairing the 
Federal Reserve Board's Committee on Supervision and Regulation, 
overseeing the Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee, 
and representing the Fed at the Financial Stability Board and in Basel, 
among other functions.
  In February, Chair Yellen committed in a hearing that she expected 
President Trump's nominee for Vice Chairman for Supervision to have the 
same responsibilities that Governor Tarullo had, including heading the 
Federal Reserve's Committee on Supervision and Regulation and 
representing the Fed at the Financial Stability Board and in Basel.
  I expect Mr. Quarles to perform those same duties in the interim, and 
I look forward to confirming him to that position soon. Mr. Quarles has 
strong bipartisan support and was voted out of the Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs Committee with the affirmative vote of 17 to 6. If 
confirmed, he will play a key role in developing regulatory and 
supervisory policy for the Federal Reserve System.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Quarles' nomination today 
and vote for his confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Quarles nomination?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. 
Heller).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez 
Masto) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 213 Ex.]

                                YEAS--65

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--32

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cochran
     Cortez Masto
     Heller
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to make a unanimous consent request. 
We have been able to work out an agreement on further aspects of Mr. 
Quarles' nomination.
  I want to thank my ranking member, Sherrod Brown, for working with us 
on this and helping us to be able to move forward.

                          ____________________