[Pages S4745-S4748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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 following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of T. Kent Wetherell II, of 
Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District 
of Florida.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                            Border Security

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, a new report from NBC News last night 
detailed the inhumane treatment of migrant children at the Arizona 
border stations: allegations of sexual assault, retaliation by Customs 
and Border Protection officers, overcrowding, lack of showers, lack of 
clean clothes, and lack of space to sleep. The accounts made by dozens 
of children at these facilities are horrifying and are completely 
unacceptable.
  In the wake of several similar reports about the treatment of 
migrants by CBP officers in Texas, in the wake of revelations of secret 
Facebook groups where Border Patrol officers joke about the horrid 
treatment of migrants, it is abundantly clear that there is a toxic 
culture at Border Patrol that can only be changed--only be changed--by 
the immediate firing and replacing of top leadership at the Agency. CBP 
needs to clean house. The top people at CBP ought to be fired now.
  In just a few days on the job, Mark Morgan, the Acting Commissioner, 
has already shown himself to be far too callous about the way in which 
children and their families are treated. We need committed law 
enforcement professionals to take over the CBP, particularly those who 
have training and expertise in working with vulnerable populations.
  There are rumors that Mr. Morgan was chosen because he is a tough 
guy--a tough guy--on kids. But he is a tough guy who will tolerate an 
out-of-control culture in many parts of the CBP.
  It is a perfectly wrong choice for what is going on there. I will say 
this to President Trump. He is not going to help you. Whatever 
Americans' views are on immigration, they don't like pictures of little 
children in squalid and awful conditions, whoever they are.
  The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, who 
oversees CBP, needs to take this matter into his own hands. He has 
shown far more balance, far more expertise, and far more ability to 
talk about the truth--not some ideology--than Morgan or some of the 
others. He should take this matter into his own hands and pursue 
changes to the Agency that go beyond mere investigations and reports.
  CBP needs a real change in personnel and in leadership, and it needs 
it now. The reports by NBC News and many others are a stain on this 
great Nation. We are not perfect. We are a lot better than most 
everyone else. But in the past, when there was a problem, we didn't 
revel in it; we tried to solve it. We cannot allow what is happening at 
the border to continue.


                              Social Media

  Mr. President, on another matter, a few weeks ago, it was reported 
that the author of a blatantly, virulently anti-Semitic cartoon 
depicting the Rothschilds and Soros was invited--actually invited to a 
social media summit at the White House. Up until yesterday, when the 
White House was asked questions about why he was invited, there was no 
answer. Reportedly, some in the administration privately defended the 
invitation of this out-and-out bigot. Only last night when it all 
became public did the White House finally revoke the invitation. But it 
is an absolute disgrace that it was extended in the first place and 
that it took them long to rescind. And it is a disgrace that the White 
House has not rescinded the invitations for several other individuals 
planning to attend who have spewed hateful and bigoted views online.
  The plain truth is this: This President and this administration are 
shockingly willing to provide succor to some of the most hateful 
ideologues, ideologies, and viewpoints. The President has promoted 
White supremacists on his Twitter feed while constantly criticizing 
social media platforms for removing hateful content. In doing so, he 
has defended people like Alex Jones and his detestable, conspiracy-
ridden radio show.
  The idea that everybody should be able to post on social media sites 
no matter how disgusting the content is wrong, in my view. When 
vicious, racist, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic hate speech is posted 
online, social media sites, as private companies, should be able to 
remove that content. But this President amazingly seems to believe that 
when offensive language is coming from a rightwing source and it is 
taken off social media sites, that is censorship. That is the message 
this social media summit seeks to advance, and it is un-American.
  At the same time, we hear that the White House and congressional 
Republicans are all too eager to decry anti-Semitism when they perceive 
it from a political opponent on the left. Well, where are those folks 
when the White House does something like this? Where are they? It seems 
some of our friends on the other side of the aisle want to politicize 
the issue of anti-Semitism, which should be condemned when anybody 
talks about it, but unfortunately we heard silence from our Republican 
friends when this virulently anti-Semitic cartoonist was invited to the 
White House--not a peep. And what he did was despicable and reminiscent 
of what was done before dictatorships took over in Europe.
  The White House was right to revoke the invitation. It never should 
have been issued in the first place. A social media summit designed to 
give support to the most radical viewpoints on social media should 
never have been planned by the White House in the first place. It 
should be obvious, but with this President, unfortunately, the obvious 
bears repeating: The President of the United States should appeal to 
the better angels of our nature and not provide support to the basest 
voices in our society. It is another reason this Presidency is just a 
disgrace--a disgrace in terms of American values, American morals, and 
American honesty.


                           Election Security

  Mr. President, now on election security, later this afternoon, 
Members from both sides of the aisle will take part in an all-Senate 
briefing on the threats faced by our elections in the 2020 campaign 
cycle. We are all no doubt aware of the general threat to our elections 
from foreign interference. It is crucial to hear from our law 
enforcement, defense, and intelligence communities about the specific 
nature of those threats and, just as important--probably more 
important--how we can counteract them and how we can prevent foreign 
interference in the 2020 election, which everybody, regardless of 
party--Democratic, Republican, liberal, or conservative--should be 
against. This is one of the things the Founding Fathers were most 
afraid of, that foreign powers would seek to

[[Page S4746]]

interfere in our elections. It didn't seem too much of a problem for 
decades and centuries, but it has now reared its ugly head--by the way, 
showing the amazing wisdom of the Washingtons and the Madisons and the 
Franklins and the Founding Fathers.
  The briefing we are going to have should serve as a turning point for 
this Chamber. It should focus our attention and spark an urgent debate 
on how to protect our democracy from future attacks. The briefing this 
afternoon should be a springboard for action. So I was amazed to listen 
to Republican Leader McConnell this morning, who, before the briefing 
has even taken place, seems to be prejudging the results of the 
meeting, saying that another Washington intervention in this matter is 
misguided. I was amazed to hear Leader McConnell take credit for the 
election security funding which Democrats fought tooth and nail to 
include in the Appropriations bill and which was initially opposed by 
many of our Republican colleagues. They skip over the fact that Leader 
McConnell and Republicans are right now blocking our efforts to include 
additional resources this year.
  Leader McConnell, if you are bragging about having put it in in 2016 
and the FBI says the threat in 2020 will be greater, why aren't you 
letting us put more money in now? Why aren't you supporting that?
  It makes no sense--a contradiction once again.
  And here, amazingly enough, we hear Leader McConnell echoing 
President Trump blaming President Obama for the interference in the 
2016 election--blaming President Obama. The Russians interfered. They 
certainly had conversations with the Trump administration. Donald Trump 
encouraged them to interfere, publicly. And now Leader McConnell has 
the temerity to blame President Obama? What a remarkable feat of 
revisionist history.
  Let's be clear on two things. First, President Putin interfered in 
our elections, and he is to blame. Second, the Trump administration has 
not done enough to hold him and his oligarchs accountable. President 
Trump recently, when he met with President Putin, sort of made a joke 
of it. That is disgraceful. That is un-American. That is not defending 
the security of America.
  Now, according to reports, we learn that the majority leader refused 
to work on a bipartisan basis to warn the public about Putin's 
interference in our elections in the midst of the 2016 election. And he 
blames President Obama when he was the one who didn't want to make it 
public? Give us a break.
  We have a duty to the country to take this seriously and not 
whitewash the facts or prejudge the conclusions. This is about 
protecting the wellspring of our democracy--it is not political--and 
ensuring Americans have absolute faith that our elections will be free 
and fair.
  It is unbelievable that in this Trump administration, unlike any 
other administration--Democratic or Republican--before it, interference 
in the election by a foreign power is made political. It is a disgrace.
  I hope today's briefing provides Members with specific information 
about what the departments and agencies are doing to combat the threat 
to our elections and what we ought to do next. After it concludes, we 
cannot let this issue sit on the back burner. Democrats and Republicans 
alike must roll up their sleeves and get to work--the majority leader 
included.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, on healthcare, finally, as oral arguments continue 
today in Texas v. the United States, we must not lose sight of what is 
at stake here. Republican attorneys general, with the Trump 
administration's full support and backing, are trying to dismantle our 
healthcare system. They are arguing that millions of Americans--
including 133 million Americans under 65 who live with a preexisting 
condition--should lose their care and their protections.
  The lawsuit that President Trump supports and our Republican 
colleagues refuse to condemn would say to a mother or father of a child 
with cancer: If the insurance company wants to cut you off, tell you 
that you can't get the treatment your kid so desperately needs to live, 
that is OK.
  Where are those Republican voices?
  We all know the statistics, but there is a human cost and a human 
story behind each one. Emilie is one of my constituents, and I shared 
her story on the steps of the Senate yesterday. She was a healthy and 
active, vibrant young girl at age 7, but her life was turned upside 
down after a tragic accident. She fell off a horse and suffered a 
traumatic brain injury. Emilie had to relearn how to walk, how to talk, 
and how to eat--a 7-year-old.
  The biggest challenge Emilie's family faced came when her private 
insurance said to her: Only 60 days of rehab, Emilie, and then you are 
out. It doesn't matter if you still can't feed yourself, and it doesn't 
matter if you can't walk.
  But she was saved because of Medicaid. Medicaid stepped in, and the 
protections for Americans with preexisting conditions prevailed. Now 
Emilie has a great chance in the future. Do we want to tell Emilie's 
parents that we want to just cut this off?
  What is wrong with our Republican friends here? It is the height of 
hypocrisy for Republicans to pledge support for Americans with 
preexisting conditions during the campaign season and then be silent as 
the Trump administration sues to take away all protections.
  I call on Senate Republicans, for the sake of the Emilies and the 
millions like her, to speak out against this reckless lawsuit--a 
lawsuit that would spell disaster for millions of hard-working, fine 
citizens in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we just heard the Democratic leader talking 
about the issue of healthcare and attacking the President and 
Republicans for not being supportive of protections for preexisting 
conditions, and I can tell you that is just not true. I can't think of 
a single Republican who doesn't believe we ought to provide protection 
for people with preexisting conditions.
  Democrats have not acknowledged that ObamaCare has failed, and I 
think we can all see the evidence of that. We have seen skyrocketing 
premiums, copays, out-of-pocket costs, deductibles--all of those things 
have gone through the roof for a lot of people, particularly in the 
individual market--as well as a reduction in the number of choices and 
options. Fewer options and higher costs have been the legacy of 
ObamaCare, so the Democrats know it has to be replaced. The reason they 
know it and you can tell it has to be replaced is that they are already 
out there talking about a proposal--a completely one-size-fits-all, 
government-run, national approach to taking over people's healthcare in 
this country called Medicare for All, at a cost of $32 trillion, which 
I will come back to in just a moment.
  The President and his administration have also acknowledged that 
ObamaCare has failed because of the skyrocketing costs and fewer 
choices and have chosen to try to get that repealed through the courts. 
Either way, we are going to be having a discussion about healthcare 
here and about what is the best system moving forward.
  Republicans, of course, as I mentioned, believe we have to protect 
people with preexisting conditions. Whatever follows in ObamaCare's 
wake, I think there is agreement on both sides of the aisle--both 
Republicans and Democrats--that preexisting conditions will be covered.
  So let's just take that political argument off the table because that 
is all it is. It is nothing more, nothing less, nothing else than a 
political argument made by Democrats when they know full well that 
Republicans are on the record in support of protecting people with 
preexisting conditions.
  The question is, What will we replace it with? We believe, obviously, 
that there is a much better approach that gives people more choices, 
more options, and creates more competition in the marketplace, which 
would put downward pressure on prices.
  The Democrats, as I said, have endorsed and are supporting a $32 
trillion government takeover of the healthcare system in this country, 
which will put enormous costs on the backs of working people in this 
country. I will come back to that in just a moment.


                              The Economy

  Mr. President, last Friday we learned that there were 224,000 jobs 
that were

[[Page S4747]]

created in June, the latest piece of good news about our strong 
economy. Thanks to the historic tax reform we passed in 2017 and our 
efforts to lift burdensome regulations, our economy has been thriving. 
Economic growth is up, and wages are growing at the strongest rate in a 
decade. Personal income is up, and unemployment is near its lowest 
level in half a century.
  The benefits of this progress are being spread far and wide. Wages 
for the lowest earning workers are rising faster than for the highest 
earning workers. Hundreds of thousands of new blue-collar jobs have 
been created. Unemployment rates for minorities have fallen. The 
unemployment rates for Asian Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic 
Americans are all at or near record lows.
  The Wall Street Journal notes, ``Nearly one million more blacks and 2 
million more Hispanics are employed than when Barack Obama left office, 
and minorities account for more than half of all new jobs created 
during the Trump Presidency.''
  When Republicans took control of the Congress and the White House 
2\1/2\ years ago, we had one goal: Make life better for hard-working 
Americans. We knew that Americans had a tough time during President 
Obama's administration, and we were determined to put more money in 
Americans' pockets and to expand opportunities for working families. 
That is exactly what we did. Our tax reform legislation, combined with 
other Republican economic policies, has created an economy that has 
lifted up Americans from across the economic spectrum.
  There is still more work, of course, that needs to be done. Farmers 
and ranchers, for example, in places like my home State of South 
Dakota, are still struggling thanks to years of commodity and livestock 
prices below production costs, protracted trade disputes, and natural 
disasters. But overall, American workers are doing better than they 
have in a long time.
  Now we need to focus on preserving and building on the policies that 
have made life better for American workers over the past 2 years, but 
that is not what will happen if Democrats have their way. Democrats are 
not only interested in eliminating a large portion, if not all, of the 
tax relief that Republicans passed; they are pushing proposals that 
would result in massive tax hikes on ordinary Americans.
  Take Medicare for All, as I mentioned earlier, which is a Democratic 
proposal for government-run healthcare. A conservative estimate sets 
the pricetag for this proposal at $32 trillion over 10 years--more 
money than the U.S. Government has spent in the past 8 years combined 
on everything. A more realistic estimate is likely substantially 
higher, given that the Senator from Vermont's current Medicare for All 
plan includes coverage for long-term care, which is an enormously 
expensive benefit.
  On top of that, most of the Democratic Presidential candidates have 
endorsed providing government-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants 
as well. It is not just a matter of providing healthcare to the 
millions of undocumented immigrants already here in the United States. 
More and more Democrats are embracing what is effectively an open-
border policy, which means the number of individuals here legally can 
skyrocket, further driving up the massive costs of the one-size-fits-
all, government-run healthcare proposal the Democrats are putting 
forward. The final pricetag, I am suggesting, could be far more than 
$32 trillion.
  Of course, Democrats' proposals are not limited to putting the 
government in charge of healthcare. They have lots of other ideas for 
more government spending, such as having the government pay for 
millions of students' college education or eliminating student loan 
debt--although they don't mention any benefits for Americans who have 
already done a lot of work to help pay off their student loans.
  As expensive as paying for these proposals would be, they pale in 
comparison to the Democrats' most expansive socialist fantasy, the 
Green New Deal, which has been estimated to cost somewhere between $51 
and $93 trillion over 10 years--$93 trillion. That is more money than 
the economic output of every country in the entire world in 2017 
combined.
  How are Democrats going to pay for these policies? Well, when they 
have an answer, it usually involves taxing the rich. That is all very 
well, until one realizes there is no way to pay for these policies just 
by taxing the rich. Medicare for All alone would ultimately require 
massive tax hikes on ordinary Americans and on American businesses.
  What will be the consequences of that? Well, a substantially lower 
standard of living for American families who would see their tax bill 
soar and their take-home pay shrink, plus massive tax hikes would wreak 
devastation on the economy. Load a small or larger business with new 
taxes, and its ability to grow, invest, expand, and hire new workers 
shrinks dramatically. That would mean lower wages, fewer jobs, and 
reduced opportunities for American families already burdened with new 
tax hikes.
  Lowering taxes for American families and American businesses has 
grown Americans' paychecks and provided them with access to new and 
better jobs and opportunities. Raising their taxes would have the 
opposite effect. Yet raising Americans' taxes is exactly what would 
happen under the Democrats' plans.
  Let's hope that Democrats think better of their proposals before the 
American people are forced to foot the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the previously scheduled vote at 11 o'clock, I be 
allowed to complete my remarks before that vote occurs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Debbie Smith Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, throughout my career, dating back to my 
days as Texas attorney general, I have long been a proud advocate for 
crime victims' rights. I believe we all have a responsibility to 
provide men and women impacted by such traumatic events the resources 
and care they need when they need it.
  Right now the Congress has an opportunity to pass two separate pieces 
of legislation to support victims of sexual assault and domestic 
violence. Sadly, both bills have been caught in the crosshairs of 
political jockeying in the House, with Democrats using a tit-for-tat 
strategy that has frozen both bills.
  One of those bills is called the Debbie Smith Act. The namesake of 
this legislation is a woman whom I have had the honor of working with 
many times over the years. She is a fierce advocate for victims of 
sexual assault.
  Like so many victims, her advocacy was born from a personal 
experience. In 1989, she was abducted from her home and raped in a 
wooded area. She reported the crime to police and went to the emergency 
room for a forensic examination, but there were no immediate answers. 
Though exact numbers are difficult to estimate, some experts believe 
that there are hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits that remain 
across the United States.
  For 6\1/2\ years the DNA evidence of Debbie's attacker sat on a shelf 
in an evidence locker while she constantly wondered who her attacker 
was and when he would appear again. Channeling that fear and 
frustration, Debbie made it her mission in life to eliminate the rape 
kit backlog. I have no doubt that because of her and the important 
legislation this Congress has passed for the past 15 years, we were 
making some pretty incredible progress toward her goal.
  In 2004, the Debbie Smith Act was signed into law to provide State 
and local crime labs with the resources to end the backlog of unsolved 
crimes. More than $1 billion has been provided to these forensic labs 
because of this law, and the legislation passed by the Senate in May 
will provide even greater resources for the program.
  While the original purpose of the legislation was to reduce the rape 
kit backlog, this DNA evidence serves multiple purposes. It enables law 
enforcement to identify and convict people who commit other violent 
crimes and takes more criminals off the street. It also has a 
corresponding benefit for the wrongfully accused. It can actually 
exclude people based on the DNA test results in the forensic rape kit.
  Because of the Debbie Smith Act, more than 860,000 DNA cases have 
been

[[Page S4748]]

processed, and 360,000 DNA profiles have been uploaded into the FBI's 
database. This accounts for 43 percent of all forensic profiles in the 
FBI's DNA database. The benefits of this law cannot be overstated. That 
is why the Debbie Smith Act was easily reauthorized in both 2008 and 
2014.
  Now it is time once again to reauthorize this important legislation. 
Earlier this year, Senator Feinstein and I introduced the Debbie Smith 
Act of 2019, which reauthorizes the important funding that supports the 
testing of this DNA evidence. Things like training for law enforcement, 
correctional officers, training for forensic nurses and other 
professionals who assist victims of sexual assault are also included in 
this bill. When the Senate voted in May, not a single Senator voted 
against it--not one. It was unanimous. But here we are nearly 2 months 
later and the House of Representatives hasn't lifted a finger.
  The bill isn't partisan. It is not divisive. It is not controversial. 
So why do they refuse to bring the bill up for a vote? Well, they are 
not holding this bill up because they are working on a different 
version or because they disagree with any of the provisions or because 
they simply don't like it. No, they are actually holding it hostage to 
try to force a vote on their ultrapartisan version of the Violence 
Against Women Act, or VAWA, the second piece of legislation they are 
stopping. Actually, Democrats allowed the current Violence Against 
Women Act to expire over Republican objections so that they could 
maintain this leverage to pass their ultrapartisan version of VAWA 
sometime later.
  Folks on both sides of the aisle can agree it is time to make some 
important improvements in VAWA, and our colleague Senator Ernst from 
Iowa has been working very hard to try to come up with a good 
bipartisan bill. It deserves to be reauthorized and strengthened to 
ensure victims have access to the services and protections they need.
  Going through the regular order is something I support, and it is an 
effort that has been led by, as I said, Senator Ernst from Iowa. But 
the version of the bill that has passed in the House is a far cry from 
any kind of consensus legislation. It includes provisions that would 
never pass in the Senate, and that is why it passed the House, in order 
to create that conflict and that obstacle.

  It is not fair to Debbie Smith and other victims of sexual assault 
for House Democrats to hold them hostage over a separate bill that is 
still being negotiated in good faith by Members on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Despite repeated requests from advocates and victims' rights groups 
to pass the Debbie Smith Act freestanding, the House has, once again, 
chosen to play politics.
  I understand Debbie has requested to meet with leadership in the 
House, and I strongly encourage them to take the time to talk to Debbie 
and hear her perspective on why this legislation is so critical and why 
it must be passed now. House Democrats refuse to pass the Debbie Smith 
Act and help crime labs eliminate the rape kit backlog. They refuse to 
negotiate in good faith on VAWA, Violence Against Women Act, 
reauthorization and what that might look like. Unfortunately, they have 
succumbed to the temptation of playing partisan politics with pretty 
important legislation and hurting a lot of innocent people in the 
meantime. I find that absolutely unacceptable.
  I would urge our colleague Speaker Pelosi to bring the Debbie Smith 
Act up for a vote and quit using sexual assault victims as a bargaining 
chip.
  I yield the floor.


                   nomination of t. kent wetherell ii

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I proudly support the 
confirmation of Judge T. Kent Wetherell II to the U.S. District Court 
for the Northern District of Florida today. He earned his undergraduate 
and juris doctor degrees from the Florida State University and has 
committed himself to public service for the past 20 years. He has 
served as deputy solicitor general in the Office of the Florida 
Attorney General; an administrative law judge in Florida's division of 
administrative hearings; and, for the past decade, as an appellate 
judge on Florida's First District Court of Appeal. Judge Wetherell will 
continue to serve our State and Nation well, and I am proud to support 
his confirmation to the Federal bench.


                      Vote on Wetherell Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Wetherell 
nomination?
  Mr. CORNYN. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. 
Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 195 Ex.]

                                YEAS--78

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--15

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Harris
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Booker
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Sanders
     Warner
     Young
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________