[Pages S6873-S6877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the Duncan nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Robert 
M. Duncan, of Kentucky, to be a Governor of the United States Postal 
Service for a term expiring December 8, 2025. (Reappointment)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 150

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor again to seek 
unanimous consent for a resolution that commemorates the Armenian 
genocide.
  In October, the House of Representatives passed a version of this 
resolution by a vote of 405 to 11--405 to 11. This vote was historic, 
and I applaud the bipartisan courage of those in the House to stand up 
for what is right.
  For those here in the Senate who would consider objecting to this 
request, I urge you to think long and hard about what it means for your 
reputation, what it means for history, and what it means for the Senate 
as an institution. History is watching, and it will not look kindly on 
those who object to recognizing genocide.
  In recent speeches before the Senate, I have laid out the case for 
why we must move forward on this resolution.

[[Page S6874]]

The simple threshold question for this body comes to this: Do we 
recognize a clear case of genocide when it happens, or do we let a 
country like Turkey determine our own views, determine our own sense of 
history, determine our own moral obligation, and determine the public 
record--a Turkey that today is committing atrocities against the Kurds 
in Syria, a Turkey that has teamed up with Russia and the Kremlin in 
purchasing the S-400 air defense system and just recently used it 
against an American F-16 to see if it works, and a Turkey that works to 
block forward movement in NATO on key national security objectives of 
the United States?
  At what point do we say enough is enough? At what point do we simply 
move forward and acknowledge the truth? The truth is that the Armenian 
genocide happened. It is a fact. To deny that is to deny one of the 
monstrous acts of history. This denial is a stain on the Senate and our 
country. We have an opportunity to right that wrong and put the U.S. 
Senate on the right side of history.
  Let's again review some of that history here today. More than 104 
years ago, the Ottoman Empire launched a systemic campaign to 
exterminate the Armenian population through killings, forced 
deportations, starvation, and other brutal matters. How do we know 
this? How do we know this? Because U.S. diplomats were there. They 
wrote it down and sent it back to the State Department in Washington.
  Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 
to 1916, wrote this in his memoir:

       When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these 
     deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a 
     whole race; they understood this well, and, in their 
     conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to 
     conceal this fact. . . . I am confident that the whole 
     history of the human race contains no such horrible episode 
     as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past 
     seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of 
     the Armenian race in 1915.

  That is what Henry Morgenthau said.
  On June 5, 1915, the U.S. consul in Aleppo, Jesse Jackson, wrote to 
Ambassador Morgenthau, saying:

       There is a living stream of Armenians pouring into Aleppo 
     from the surrounding towns and villages.
       The [Ottoman] Government has been appealed to by various 
     prominent people and even by those in authority to put an end 
     to these conditions, under the representations that it can 
     only lead to the greatest blame and reproach, but all to no 
     avail. It is without doubt a carefully planned scheme to 
     thoroughly extinguish the Armenian race.

  On July 24, 1915, in a report to Ambassador Morgenthau, the U.S. 
consul in Harput, Leslie Davis, stated: ``Any doubt that may have been 
expressed in previous reports as to the Government's intention in 
sending away the Armenians have been removed. . . . It has been no 
secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a race. . . . 
Everything was apparently planned months ago.
  In an October 1, 1916 telegram to Secretary of State Robert Lansing, 
U.S. Charge d'Affaires Hoffman Philip wrote, ``The Department is in 
receipt of ample details demonstrating the horrors of the anti-Armenian 
campaign. For many months past I have felt that the most efficacious 
method of dealing with the situation from an international standpoint 
would be to flatly threaten to withdraw our Diplomatic Representative 
from a country where such barbarous methods are not only tolerated but 
actually carried out by order of the existing government.''
  And finally, Abram I. Elkus, who served as the United States 
Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1916-17, telegrammed the 
Secretary of State on October 17, 1916, stating ``In order to avoid 
opprobrium of the civilized world, which the continuation of massacres 
[of the Armenians] would arouse, Turkish officials have now adopted and 
are executing the unchecked policy of extermination through starvation, 
exhaustion, and brutality of treatment hardly surpassed even in Turkish 
history.''
  That continues to verify that these diplomats saw the truth with 
their own eyes and communicated back to their superiors in Washington. 
They did their job, and the historical record proves it. Now it is up 
to individual U.S. Senators to do your job.
  The Government of Turkey has funded lobbyists willing to trumpet lies 
and make excuses for these atrocities. The Turkish Government and its 
sympathizers have advocated for restrictive laws on expression and 
against legislation that recognizes the Armenian genocide. They will 
stop at nothing to bury the truth. I hope that individual Senators will 
not once again fall for it.
  Any apprehension, any trepidation on the part of Senators who believe 
this resolution will somehow do irreparable harm to our relationship 
with Turkey is simply unfounded. Twenty-seven countries have recognized 
the genocide in one form or another. Some saw trade increases in Turkey 
following their recognition. Twelve members of NATO have recognized the 
genocide. They still work with Turkey on defense issues. They still 
have embassies in Ankara. Their relationships were not irreparably 
harmed. Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, 
Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, and the Slovak 
Republic all did the right thing.

  I say to my friends and colleagues that genocide is genocide. 
Senators in this body should have the simple courage to say it plainly, 
say it clearly, and say it without reservation.
  In every session of Congress since 2006, I have introduced or 
cosponsored resolutions affirming the facts of the Armenian genocide. 
When I was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was 
proud to preside over the passage of an Armenian genocide resolution 
out of the committee.
  The work continues here today. If we are not successful this 
afternoon, I know we are not going to stop until we are. I am not going 
to stop until I go through every single Senator who is willing to come 
to the floor and issue an objection on behalf of the administration 
because I think Armenian Americans need to know who stands in support 
of recognizing the genocide and who opposes it.
  I thank Senator Cruz for joining me in this effort. He has been 
stalwart with me in this bipartisan resolution. I thank the 27 
additional Senators who have been willing to stand up for a true, 
clear-eyed vision: Senators Van Hollen, Rubio, Stabenow, Gardner, 
Markey, Cornyn, Warren, Romney, Peters, Portman, Feinstein, Wyden, 
Duckworth, Reed, Schumer, Udall, Harris, Whitehouse, Sanders, 
Klobuchar, Cardin, Booker, Casey, Bennet, Rosen, Brown, and Cortez 
Masto. I thank them all.
  Before I ask unanimous consent, I yield to my colleague from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague from 
New Jersey today in urging the Senate to take up and pass the 
bipartisan Menendez-Cruz resolution affirming U.S. recognition of the 
Armenian genocide.
  From 1915 to 1923, the Ottoman Empire carried out a forced 
deportation of nearly 2 million Armenians, of whom 1.5 million were 
killed. It was an atrocious genocide. That it happened is a fact and an 
undeniable reality. In fact, the very word ``genocide,'' which 
literally means the killing of an entire people, was coined by Raphael 
Lemkin to describe the horrific nature of the Ottoman Empire's 
calculated extermination of the Armenians.
  We must never be silenced in response to atrocities. Over 100 years 
ago, the world was silent as the Armenian people suffered and were 
murdered, and many people today are still unaware of what happened.
  With this resolution, we are saying that it is the policy of the 
United States of America to commemorate the Armenian genocide through 
official recognition and remembrance. We have a moral duty to 
acknowledge what happened to 1.5 million innocent souls. It is the 
right thing to do.
  I certainly understand the concerns of some of my colleagues who 
worry that this resolution could irreversibly poison the U.S.-Turkey 
relationship and push Turkey into the arms of Russia, but I don't 
believe those concerns have any sound basis.
  As my colleague from New Jersey pointed out, 12 NATO nations have 
similarly recognized the Armenian genocide. Yes, Turkey is a NATO ally, 
but allies can speak the truth to each other. We should never be afraid 
to tell the truth, and alliances grounded in lies are themselves 
unsustainable. Additionally, in the coming days, the Foreign Relations 
Committee will be

[[Page S6875]]

marking up an enormous package of sanctions on Turkey.
  The horse has left the barn. There is no good reason for the 
administration to object to this resolution, and the effect of doing so 
is to deny recognition of this chilling moment of history.
  Let me close by echoing the optimism the Senator from New Jersey 
expressed. We may well see an objection here today, as we did when 
Senator Menendez and I previously came to the Senate floor and sought 
to pass this just a couple of weeks ago, but I believe that in the 
coming days and weeks, we will get this passed and that this objection, 
I hope, will be only temporary. I look forward to the day--hopefully 
very, very soon--when all 100 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, are 
united in simply speaking the truth, recognizing the genocide that 
occurred, and making perfectly clear that America stands against 
genocide.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for his 
eloquent statement and for his forthrightness on this issue.
  As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of 
S. Res. 150 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I 
further ask that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be 
agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I don't 
think there is a single Member of the U.S. Senate who doesn't have 
serious concerns about Turkey's behavior both historically and 
currently. In fact, I support the spirit of this resolution. I suspect 
99 of my colleagues do. At the right time, we may pass it, as Senator 
Cruz has stated; however, I don't think this is the right time. If 
there is a right time, this certainly isn't it. It is largely because 
just hours ago, our President returned from the NATO summit in London 
with NATO leaders, where this was a topic of discussion with the 
leadership from Turkey--this being the acknowledgement of genocide, as 
well as the purchase of the S-400.
  I want to have a clear readout of the President's interaction and 
discussion with President Erdogan and our delegation's negotiations 
with Turkey before adopting this resolution. I don't think we can take 
the risk of undermining the complex and ongoing diplomatic efforts 
which are in our national security interests as a country.
  I, too, want to be on the right side of history. I believe we will be 
on the right side of history, but these negotiations that the President 
is currently in are a part of getting on the right side of history.
  I appreciate the ongoing conversations and still hope we will be able 
to overcome the challenges in the bilateral relationship with Turkey. 
We know what these challenges are, and we all share the goal of seeing 
them appropriately addressed, but there is no good alternative right 
now. In my view, adoption of this resolution today is unnecessary and 
might very well undermine that diplomatic effort at a key time.
  I do not intend to continuously object to this resolution, but I 
believe it is appropriate for me to do so at this time, so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, once again, I am deeply disappointed. 
This is the third time a Republican Senator has come to the floor to 
object to the genocide resolution--the recognition of the genocide 
resolution. There is never a good time. There is never a good time. In 
my view, there is always the right time, however, to recognize genocide 
as genocide.
  My colleague from North Dakota actually sponsored H. Res. 220, the 
Armenian genocide resolution, affirming ``the proper commemoration and 
consistent condemnation of the Armenian Genocide will strengthen our 
international standing in preventing modern-day genocides'' when he was 
a Member of the House of Representatives. He was right then. He was 
right then. The time was right then, and the time is right now.
  President Erdogan was here in the United States a couple of weeks 
ago. There was a meeting at the White House. A few of my colleagues had 
the privilege of joining the President expressing their discontent. 
Erdogan was given options--a way out of the dilemma that Turkey has put 
themselves in with the S-400. Basically, they were told either return 
to Russia and destroy them in our presence and/or give them to us, 
which, of course, Russia will never allow that to happen, for us to 
have their technology.
  There was a deadline. It was yesterday. I waited until today to make 
sure that in fact we wouldn't intercede in any way with that 
possibility. Turkey, in the interim, while this is going on, they used 
the S-400 to fire at an F-16 to see if they could take it down. Really? 
Really?
  So this premise that there was a meeting in NATO--well, there was a 
meeting in Washington, and then there was a meeting in NATO. They still 
haven't done anything on the S-400. They still haven't exercised any of 
the options that have been given to them.
  I just want my colleagues to know that I intend to come once a week 
to the Senate floor, and all those who want to be listed on the wrong 
side of history, they have the option of doing so. I am not going to 
cease until we do what is morally and principally right, and that is to 
recognize the Armenian genocide as a host of other nations have done as 
well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
as a member of the Bar Association of Delaware, and a Member of the 
U.S. Senate. I am concerned about the transformation of our Federal 
judiciary under this current administration. I am particularly 
concerned about rising issues around qualification and competency. Let 
me speak to that, if I might, for a few minutes.
  This Senate is doing precious little in terms of legislating, but we 
are moving at a breakneck pace to confirm President Trump's judicial 
nominees--roughly, 150 so far. During the entire 8 years of the 
previous administration, 55 circuit court judges were confirmed. Nearly 
that same number have been confirmed in just 3 years of the Trump 
administration--48. Nearly one in seven of all U.S. district court 
judges currently serving have been appointed by President Trump.
  I am deeply concerned about the quality of some of these nominations. 
Some have never taken a deposition, argued a motion, let alone tried a 
case in court. The American Bar Association, the professional 
association of lawyers, has ranked nine of President Trump's nominees 
as ``not qualified,'' which is an exceptionally unusual and striking 
step for them to take.
  This isn't about whether the President's nominees are conservative or 
not. I understand that elections have consequences and that a 
Republican President will more often than not nominate conservative 
judges. I have, in some cases, joined my Democratic colleagues in 
supporting qualified nominees put forward by the administration who 
have won support from their home State Senators and advanced through a 
bipartisan judicial nomination and confirmation process in our 
committee, but let's be clear. I will not stand by while this 
administration rams through nominees who are not just Republican and 
not just conservative but demonstrably unqualified.
  I can't support nominees with deeply concerning records about their 
commitment to justice and to advancing a commonsense juris prudence. I 
am not going to set a standard any lower than what has been required in 
previous administrations to serve on the Federal bench for many, many 
years.
  We have heard in this Chamber and around this country that the 
quality of the Federal bench and the capabilities and the experience 
and the values and the judgment of those who serve on Federal benches 
across this country is an absolutely essential piece of our 
Constitution and our ordered liberty.

[[Page S6876]]

The cases that come before Federal courts are too important to tolerate 
incompetence, inexperience, or bias in the Federal judiciary.
  Why does this matter both in terms of the process and the substance? 
The President has put forward nominees who, in my view, would take us 
backward on civil rights and voting rights, on women's access to 
healthcare, on laws that protect consumers and workers, and on the 
environment. Their decisions impact every American. Equally concerning 
is that Trump's nominees don't reflect the diversity of our Nation. We 
want litigants to go into a court and be able to have their day in 
court and be confident that the judge before them represents the 
breadth and range of America.
  So far, of the 55 circuit court nominees confirmed, only 11 have been 
women, and they have been even less racially diverse. Of all of 
President Trump's nominees, 87 percent are White and 78 percent are 
men. I think the judiciary should reflect the diversity of the American 
people and have strong records and a wealth of experience. Sadly, that 
is not the case for several we have considered, and let me briefly 
speak to two.
  President Trump's nominee to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, who was recently confirmed, Lawrence VanDyke, raised serious 
concerns about his work ethic and his temperament. He was rated ``not 
qualified'' by the ABA based on concerns about his lack of knowledge of 
basic procedural rules and his commitment to being truthful. Six 
retired justices of the Montana Supreme Court questioned his fitness 
when he ran for the Supreme Court in Montana and expressed concerns 
about his partisanship and the possibility of corporate influence. He 
is opposed to basic civil rights and civil liberties for the LGBTQ 
community and made a range of statements that I think would be 
disqualifying under any circumstance.
  Sarah Pitlyk, who this Senate just confirmed this week to a lifetime 
seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, 
has never tried a case, either criminal or civil, has never taken a 
deposition, has never examined a witness, and has never argued a motion 
in Federal or State court. The ABA unanimously rated her as 
``unqualified'' for a lifetime seat in the Federal judiciary.
  We can and we should do better than this. Of the entire bar of the 
State of Missouri, I am certain there are qualified, capable, and 
seasoned conservatives who could have been nominated for that seat in 
the entire Ninth Circuit. In particular, the State for which Mr. 
VanDyke was nominated, there are certainly abundant opportunities to 
choose qualified nominees. We can and we should do better than this.
  In my State of Delaware, my senior Senator, Tom Carper, and I worked 
together to help form a bipartisan judicial nominating committee to 
fill two vacancies on our district court. We felt strongly we had to 
reach out to the White House and work with them to identify consensus 
nominees who would be the best candidates we could best support and 
whom the President could nominate. Ultimately, we had a very productive 
process, and the President nominated Maryellen Noreika and Colm 
Connolly, whom we both returned positive blue slips for. They 
ultimately have been confirmed by this Senate, seated, and now serve in 
our district court. This is how the process should work.
  We should be able to consult back and forth between the executive and 
legislative until we find competent, capable, and qualified judges of 
whom we can all be proud of. The Senate should not be a rubberstamp for 
this administration, regardless of the quality of nominees that get 
sent forward.
  I will continue to oppose President Trump's nominees who are 
undeserving of a seat on the Federal bench and unqualified to serve. It 
is, in my view, our responsibility to guard against the politicization 
of the Federal judiciary, and we should work together, not to tear down 
and destroy the traditions and rules of this Senate but to find ways to 
strengthen and sustain them. That is how we will move qualified and 
consensus nominees forward and protect the independent judiciary on 
which our very democracy rests.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Tribute to Johnny Isakson

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because I 
missed an important occasion in the Senate. We had a celebration 
recently of one of our more beloved Members, Senator Johnny Isakson of 
Georgia.
  There wasn't much that could keep me away from that, but there was no 
Senator going to Madrid to the conference of the parties to consider 
the Paris Climate Agreement. Speaker Pelosi asked me to come on her 
House delegation so that it was bicameral. As I think most people in 
this body know, I am pretty animated on that subject and couldn't say 
no. There are not many other things that could have kept me away.
  I want to come now and make up a little bit for being absent that day 
and express my gratitude for Johnny's friendship to me over the years. 
I had the pleasure of going with him to the D-day anniversary on a 
codel that he led with his usual graciousness and patriotism. He was 
kind enough to join quite early on the bipartisan Senate Oceans Caucus 
I started and has been a very helpful part of that endeavor.
  We have worked together on ways to improve healthcare planning for 
people who are in the late stage of illness to make sure that they get 
the care that they want and don't get a lot of care that they don't 
want and so that they have a chance to have their dignity and desire to 
be at home respected.
  We have long been adherent of a biennial budget, and I am delighted 
that the bipartisan bill that Senator Enzi and I have put together will 
create a biennial budget. I am not sure we will be able to get that 
done before Senator Isakson leaves, but one way or the other, his 
interest in biennial budgeting will live on, I hope, successfully when 
we pass that.
  We had a parity question about children's mental health hospitals 
that weren't getting counted and, therefore, weren't getting access to 
funding for the medical interns who come, and Johnny helped me fix 
that. It helped, I am sure, hospitals in Georgia, but it was 
particularly helpful to me for our Children's Hospital in Rhode Island.
  We have a lot of Rhode Islanders who were killed in the Lebanon 
Marine barracks bombing, and there has been litigation against Iran for 
its responsibility for those deaths. It is not easy to collect a 
judgment on a foreign government, and Johnny has been very helpful to 
me in our joint efforts on Iran terror victims' judgments, helping us 
let the lawyers collect against assets of the Government of Iran.
  Then, we regularly have done National Mentoring Month resolutions 
together.
  But for all the things we have done together, that is not what I am 
going to miss about Senator Johnny Isakson. He is just one of the most 
decent, kind, good people who I have come across anywhere in my life 
and, certainly, one of the most decent and kind Members of the Senate.
  With my very sincere apologies, Johnny, for missing the correct day, 
I hope you will understand how much it mattered to me to be elsewhere 
and why I had to be there. I come to the floor now, belatedly, to wish 
you all my very best with great affection and great respect.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
on the soon-to-be-pending nomination be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Duncan nomination?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S6877]]

  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the 
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from 
South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 385 Ex.]

                                YEAS--89

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Booker
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Warren
  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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________