April 30, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 70 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S2497-S2501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Senate is in the midst of 
considering several more well-qualified nominees for service in the 
executive branch and on our Nation's Federal courts. We are doing so in 
a more reasonable, efficient manner--more in line with this body's 
tradition--thanks to the modest reform the Senate passed just a few 
weeks ago.
  Until recently, our colleagues across the aisle had succeeded in 
subjecting even the least controversial nominees to day after day of 
so-called debate.
  Countless hours of valuable floor time were spent on individuals who 
passed through committees of jurisdiction without any opposition and 
for individuals whose final confirmation votes frequently cleared 90 
votes, but now the Senate has begun to clear the backlog and put more 
public servants to work on behalf of the American people.
  Last evening we voted to advance the nomination of William Cooper of 
Maryland to serve as general counsel at the Department of Energy. Mr. 
Cooper's nomination first arrived in the Senate 9 months ago. It has 
twice been reported favorably by our colleagues on the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Cooper of Florida has waited even 
longer to begin his service as Assistant Secretary of State for 
Political-Military Affairs, and the story is not much different for the 
jurists waiting to finally be confirmed to Federal district courts 
either.
  So I look forward to the swift consideration of this week's slate of 
nominees, and I would urge each of my colleagues to join me in voting 
for their confirmation.


                               Healthcare

  On another matter, lest there be any doubt that my Democratic 
colleagues here in the Congress are serious about their party's radical 
left turn, the House Rules Committee is actually holding a hearing 
today on their proposal to outlaw private health insurance and force 
every American into a new government-run system.
  As I have said, this grand scheme ought to be called Medicare for 
None. Democrats want to drain the popular program that seniors have 
relied on for more than 50 years and slap its name on a brand-new, 
untried, untested government-run system, and this thing they have 
cooked up would become the only option--the only option--available to 
American families.
  Democrats are so confident that Americans will love their one-size-
fits-all government plan that they feel the need to ban the private 
sector from competing with it.
  This is a fantasy pulled from the farthest corners of the left, but 
now leading Democrats are proudly embracing it.
  Here is the chairman of the House Rules Committee: ``It's a serious 
proposal that deserves serious consideration.''
  Well, it certainly is a serious proposal for more than 180 million 
Americans who would be unceremoniously kicked off of their private 
insurance plans. It certainly is a serious proposal for the tens of 
millions of Americans who paid into Medicare so it would actually be 
there now when they needed

[[Page S2498]]

it--not distorted into something totally different.
  This is a particularly important point, given the serious challenges 
that Medicare is already facing. The Administrator for the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services recently explained that ``the program's 
main trust fund for hospital services can only pay full benefits for 
seven more years,'' and she noted the particular irony that this 
``sobering dose of reality'' is being delivered as ``some are calling 
for a complete government takeover of the American healthcare system.''
  On our current trajectory, as soon as 7 years from now, in 2026, 
``doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes would not receive their full 
compensation from the program and patients could face more of the 
financial burden.'' That is from the New York Times.
  In other words, this is a time for shoring up the existing health 
insurance that our seniors like and rely on, not a time to risk it--
risk it all--by packing millions and millions more--the whole rest of 
the Nation--into that very system for the sake of a snappy campaign 
promise.
  The last time Democrats had unified control of the House, the Senate, 
and the White House, of course, they implemented sweeping changes that 
the American people were assured would keep healthcare costs down. Lots 
of promises were made. Lots of promises were broken.
  Many families are now saddled with sky-high premiums, deductibles, 
and out-of-pocket costs, not to mention dwindling choices, and now 
Democrats are back for another, even bigger bite of the apple.
  The last thing American families need is even more top-down, one-
size-fits-all social engineering. We need to take practical steps to 
address what really matters most to American families--healthcare 
costs. We need to preserve what works, fix what doesn't, bring costs 
down, and preserve Medicare. That is the sensible approach that 
American families deserve. That is the practical solutions-oriented 
approach that Republicans are committed to.
  But as we have already seen across the Capitol this week, our 
Democratic friends want to wheel out the drawing board yet again and 
take another big whack at the healthcare plans Americans already rely 
on.


                         Tribute to John Abegg

  Madam President, on one final matter, one of the most bittersweet 
subjects that Senators discuss on the floor is the departure of trusted 
staff. On one hand, I am certainly glad for any opportunity to 
highlight members of my all-star team, especially someone as diligent 
and tireless as the subject of my remarks today. The vast majority of 
the late-night hours and weekend projects that go on around here are 
repaid with much private gratitude but little to no public fanfare. So 
I am glad I can devote some time today to a longtime adviser who has 
earned my complete trust and thrown himself heart, mind, and soul into 
serving Kentucky and our Nation for nearly two decades.
  But I am very unhappy that the occasion for this is that John Abegg 
is taking leave of the Senate to pursue the next chapter for himself 
and his family. John, you see, is my chief counsel. He arrived on our 
team before I was whip and before I was leader. President Clinton was 
still in office, and it was one of the more fortunate days of my career 
when this bright, young lawyer walked into my office. He brought an 
outsized share of shrewd judgment, sharp wit, and an eagle eye for 
detail along with him.
  Some 19 years later, nearly all of that is still the case. There 
might be a little more seasoning. The reading glasses might be a little 
thicker. But every ounce of the talent and dedication that were so 
evident back then have remained part of my operation ever since.
  John has literally flourished. He has become an institution in his 
own right here in the Senate and in the legal community, and I feel so 
fortunate to have had him by my side.
  Now, today, it may all sound quite impressive--the chief counsel who 
advises the Senate majority leader on judicial nominations and 
countless important policy matters. But John can attest that the 
original job description 19 years ago wasn't so glamorous.
  It was the beginning of the 107th Congress. I secured a temporary 
seat on the Judiciary Committee. It was an important assignment, but it 
came with some caveats. Namely, I would be last on the docket to speak 
at hearings. So most often, as a courtesy, I would yield my speaking 
time and avoid holding up the proceedings.
  But this will give you a picture of how unbelievably industrious and 
meticulous John is, because my bright, young counsel saw this as a zero 
license to slack off or let up on the comprehensive briefing books he 
would prepare for me.
  No matter how many times I opted only to listen and cast my vote, the 
painstaking, encyclopedic preparations came pouring in--just in case. I 
may have been the new guy on the block, but John made sure that every 
week I showed up loaded for bear, with extensive background 
information, potential amendments, and suggested questions, because, 
you see, John Abegg is never, ever caught flat-footed--not ever, and if 
you are around him, he will not let you be caught flat-footed either. 
For John, a job worth doing is a job worth doing to perfection--or as 
close to perfection as possible.
  The man literally handled everything from nominations to policy 
matters to his own colleagues' questions about Senate ethics. Now, all 
of that was in a half-day's work, by the way, and yet every one of 
these subjects, every single time, was handled with total commitment, 
stunning professionalism, and the utmost care. Zero stones were left 
unturned, zero angles left unconsidered--a true ``lawyer's lawyer'' 
from dawn until well after dusk, and then all over again.
  We are talking about a mindset that you would think even a top 
professional might reserve for one marquee project every couple of 
months. John brought that high standard to 14 different things before 
lunchtime, and he did it every day for almost 20 years.
  Now, I realize that the picture I have painted so far may sound like 
an incredible team asset but not necessarily the most warm and fuzzy 
individual. It is true that John was never afraid to state his views 
directly to his peers or his chief of staff or to me. Now, I am not 
sure anyone on my staff has been able to deliver hard news, when 
necessary, with more clarity or greater courage, but he has been 
equally reliable for the best laugh line in most meetings, the 
perfectly timed joke. He literally lifts everyone up by bringing the 
house down.
  And for all of the priorities he juggles, anybody who has seen John 
in the presence of his lovely wife and their three girls knows exactly 
what his real top priority is.
  During his tenure, John has offered me peerless advice and analysis 
on countless judicial nominations. A majority of the sitting Supreme 
Court was confirmed while John has been on this job. He takes the 
judiciary as seriously as it deserves. The third branch and our Nation 
are better for his service.
  Then, there is a lengthy catalog of legislative work that John has 
steered and helped me to shape. Some of his legacy is what you might 
expect from a no-nonsense lawyer for a Republican Member of this body--
work on causes like class action reform or medical liability reform.
  But anyone who spent time around John would be equally unsurprised by 
the long nights he put in to help bring about comprehensive legislation 
to address the opioid crisis or crack down on the scourge of human 
trafficking or to help local law enforcement care for fallen officers' 
families and search for missing children. In every single case, John 
was on the case--rock-solid legal advice, keen strategy. Before an 
issue even popped up, he would have his finger on the pulse of the 
Senate.
  Once we were in the thick of it, he was often our field general and 
backbone, and after our work was done, but only then, it was time for a 
well-earned smile.
  But John's smile is widest when he is talking about his beautiful 
wife Heidi and their three lovely daughters, Abigail, Ingrid, and 
Erika.
  So while his friends and colleagues here in the Senate are sad to see 
John go, we know he does nothing rashly, and so we are confident that 
he has thought this calculus through as completely as he has everything 
else.
  Fewer full-day hearings and more bedtime stories. Fewer dinners 
cracking up his colleagues over takeout food

[[Page S2499]]

during some all-night session and more times at his own kitchen table.
  Well, after nearly two decades, I suppose we can let this slacker 
head for the hills, and we will know that he has made the right call 
because John Abegg is the one who made it.
  So I really can't thank him enough for his loyal friendship, wise 
counsel, and exceptionally well done job.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Medicare

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, shortly before Easter, the junior Senator 
from Vermont introduced a new version of his so-called Medicare for All 
plan. Given the staggering pricetag of his previous plan, it was 
reasonable to wonder if he would think about producing something that 
was at least a bit more modest and achievable. So what is the new plan 
like? Is it any more realistic? Did he figure out a way to actually pay 
for a government takeover of healthcare? Well, the answer is no. In 
fact, the new plan is even worse. It is more unrealistic, more costly, 
and even more likely to result in massive tax hikes on middle-class 
Americans.
  Analysis of a previous version of the Vermont Senator's Medicare for 
All plan found that it would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. Now, to 
put that number in perspective, that is more money than the Federal 
Government has spent combined in the last 8 years on everything--
defense, law enforcement, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, the environment, agriculture, Foreign Affairs--everything.
  Here is what the Washington Post had to say back in 2017 about the 
pricetag for government-run healthcare:

       But the government's price tag would be astonishing. When 
     Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . proposed a ``Medicare for all'' 
     health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan 
     Urban Institute figured that it would raise government 
     spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax 
     increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. 
     Sanders did not propose anything close to it.

  Fast-forward to today, and, once again, the Senator from Vermont has 
proposed a government-run health plan without even coming close to 
presenting a way to pay for it. The only difference this time is that 
the pricetag is likely to be even higher--much higher. Why? Because the 
Senator from Vermont's new plan also includes coverage for long-term 
care--an incredibly expensive part of the healthcare system.
  The Democrats' last attempt to have the government run a long-term 
care program fell apart before it was even implemented because the 
program was not financially viable. Thirty-two trillion dollars was a 
staggering enough figure, and now we are talking about having the 
Federal Government spend even more. Where do the Democrats think we are 
going to find the money? The list of proposed tax hikes that the 
Senator from Vermont released would not even come close to covering the 
estimated cost of his original plan, much less the cost of his new, 
expanded Medicare fantasy. This is not a plan that can be paid for by 
using the Democrats' favorite solution of taxing the rich. If Medicare 
for All ever became law, it would be paid for on the backs of middle-
class families.
  It is impossible to have a discussion of Medicare for All--or maybe 
we should call it Medicare for None given the fact that it would end 
Medicare as we know it--without focusing on the insane pricetag. Yet 
that is not the only unrealistic aspect of this bill. The Senator from 
Vermont is proposing to implement his plan in 4 years. That is right--
in 4 years. The Obama administration had 3\1/2\ years to implement the 
ObamaCare exchanges, which were intended to cover a tiny fraction of 
the number of people who would be covered under Medicare for All. As I 
am sure most Americans remember, the government couldn't put together a 
working website in that time period. The idea that the government could 
successfully transition more than 180 million Americans into 
government-run healthcare in the space of 4 years is ludicrous, not to 
mention what that healthcare would be like when Americans would have 
made it into the system.
  As a recent Vox article pointed out, the Senator from Vermont is 
proposing extremely generous benefits--benefits that are substantially 
more generous than those that are offered by other countries with 
government-run healthcare. Yet, again, he has no viable way of paying 
for any of this. The likelihood that Americans would actually see all 
of those benefits is slim.

  When the government reaches a point where it can't pay for all of the 
benefits it promised, it has basically two options. It can raise taxes 
even further--and that would undoubtedly happen; I think that is a 
given--but the government would also inevitably have to turn to the 
other option: the kind of control over healthcare we have seen in other 
countries with socialized medicine. Americans would also undoubtedly 
soon find themselves facing that other hallmark of socialized medicine: 
long wait times for care.
  The leader recently said on the floor that Republicans stand for 
``preserving what works and fixing what doesn't.'' That is exactly it. 
Republicans know that our healthcare system is not perfect. We are 
committed to finding solutions to make healthcare more affordable, but 
we don't think tearing down our entire system is the answer. We can 
address the healthcare challenges we face without ripping away 
Americans' health insurance and forcing them into a government-run, 
one-size-fits-all plan and then raising their taxes to pay for it. We 
can make healthcare more affordable without destroying Medicare as we 
know it.
  Democrats' socialist healthcare fantasy sounds nice in theory, but 
the reality would be anything but--huge new tax hikes for the middle 
class, long wait times and lower quality of care, government 
involvement in your healthcare decisions, and no choice at all when it 
comes to your insurance.
  Let's hope the Democratic Party halts its mad rush to the extreme 
left before Americans are forced to live under the ugly reality of 
socialized medicine.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of R. Clarke Cooper

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
R. Clarke Cooper to be an Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of 
Political-Military Affairs at the Department of State.
  The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs plays a critical role in the 
State Department and in broader diplomatic and national security 
efforts around the world. Every day, the Bureau works to ensure that 
our foreign policy goals are driving our security partnerships and 
security assistance around the world, including nearly $100 billion 
annually in arms sales.
  I am prepared to support Mr. Cooper's nomination as Assistant 
Secretary because I believe he brings experience, insight, and 
leadership that will benefit the Bureau and our foreign policy. I also 
expect Mr. Cooper to uphold the commitments he made during his 
confirmation hearing, including that he will not only be responsive to 
all inquiries from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its staff 
about the Bureau's work but that he will also proactively keep us fully 
informed about issues under his jurisdiction.


                                3D Guns

  Madam President, if confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Cooper will assume 
his position at a time when the Bureau is at the center of, quite 
frankly, some appalling decisions by the Trump administration that will 
undermine the safety and security of Americans abroad.
  I cannot wrap my head around the administration's policies, for 
example, on the issue of 3D-printed firearms. The Trump administration 
apparently believes it is a good idea to indiscriminately distribute 
around the world--to foreign adversaries, terrorist organizations, and 
future mass shooters--the literal blueprints for using 3D printers

[[Page S2500]]

to make nearly undetectable firearms and components.
  Apparently, the Trump administration believes this information should 
be readily available to anyone as it seeks to transfer the export 
control licensing of military-style firearms and ammunition from the 
Department of State to the less stringent Department of Commerce. Even 
the Commerce Department has admitted that its own regulations will not 
permit them to effectively stop the publication of these firearm 
blueprints online.
  It is not difficult to imagine the devastating consequences of this 
reckless decision, which will make more lethal weapons available to 
more thuggish regimes and facilitate their illicit transfer to 
criminals and terrorists. We are talking about making it easier for a 
criminal to build his own weapons without having to get a background 
check. We are talking about making it easier for terrorists to board a 
plane with deadly guns, perhaps to hijack them and use the aircraft as 
weapons, just as the 9/11 terrorists did. We are talking about making 
it easier for armed militants to enter a U.S. Embassy undetected, 
endangering the lives of our diplomats abroad. Simply put, we are 
talking about preventable tragedies made possible by the thoughtless 
actions of this administration. These are undetectable. That is the big 
challenge here. Indeed, this decision could place all American citizens 
and officials--even the President himself--at greater security risk.
  It is not too late to reverse this mistake. The Trump administration 
can halt its decision to transfer the export jurisdiction to the 
Commerce Department. At the very least, the administration could leave 
the blueprints for producing undetectable, 3D-printed firearms under 
the stronger regulatory controls of the Department of State.


                              Human Rights

  Madam President, on a separate note, I have made clear to Mr. Cooper 
that the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs has a moral and strategic 
imperative to consider human rights and end-use monitoring when it 
comes to making decisions about arms sales, transfers, and security 
assistance to foreign countries.
  Over the past 2 years, it has been troubling to see human rights 
considerations take a backseat. That includes the President's recent 
decision to revise the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy to disregard a 
country's human rights record. With Saudi Arabia, the Khashoggi murder, 
and the debacle of the Yemen war fresh on our minds, we need no 
reminder of the consequences of the President's impulse to put profit 
above all else, including respect for basic human rights. Human rights 
are not just a nice gesture; they are fundamental American values and 
critical to advancing peace, justice, democracy, and stability around 
the world.
  We must ask ourselves what we as a nation want America to be. Are we 
a beacon of hope for the oppressed or simply the biggest arms merchant 
to the world? Count me and many of my colleagues as standing firmly for 
the former, and I hope Mr. Cooper will stand with us.


                           Nomination Process

  Madam President, finally, for weeks, we have heard from the 
President, the majority leader, and other Republicans about vacancies 
at the State Department and why that contributed to the supposed need 
for Senator McConnell to exercise the nuclear option on nominees. As I 
recently explained on the floor, Republicans need to point the finger 
at their President. In many cases, the President has simply failed to 
put forward nominees for key national security positions. When he does 
put forward nominees, too often these individuals have not been 
thoroughly vetted, and issues that would be disqualifying for nominees 
in any other administration have simply been glossed over.
  It turns out there is another issue that speaks directly to the 
flimsiness of the majority leader's rationale for invoking the nuclear 
option, and that is the fact that Republicans themselves are blocking 
State Department nominees, including career employees nominated to be 
Ambassadors to Ecuador and Cambodia. These nominees were reported out 
of the Foreign Relations Committee by voice vote and without any 
controversies several weeks ago.
  They could have been confirmed and on the ground in their posts prior 
to Easter recess. Instead, their nominations are languishing because 
the majority leader has refused to move. So I now call on Senator 
McConnell to stop playing politics with the State Department and get 
these career nominees confirmed.
  As I have said repeatedly, when presented with qualified, well-vetted 
nominees, my staff and I will work around the clock to advance the 
confirmation process. I would ask for the same from my Republican 
colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remembering Richard Lugar

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, over the weekend, Indiana lost a giant in 
Richard G. Lugar. Senator Lugar spent 36 years as a Member of this 
body, and I rise today to celebrate his life, which made the world a 
better, safer place to live.
  I had the pleasure in the early 2000s to work on Senator Lugar's 
staff, and I had a front row seat to history, watching a true statesman 
at work. He stood by me as I took my oath right here in this Chamber. I 
will never forget his support of me and of so many others throughout 
the years.
  Senator Lugar's reserved and quiet demeanor sometimes might have led 
people to believe he was something less than competitive. In truth, he 
was one of the most competitive people I have ever encountered. Senator 
Lugar was a runner, and his office competed every year in the Capital 
Challenge, the competitive race between legislative staffs. Senator 
Lugar had a member of his staff actually track everyone's time and 
their improvement, or lack thereof, from year to year. I think that 
spreadsheet still exists somewhere today. When I was going through the 
hiring process to be a legislative assistant in the Senator's office, I 
went through the normal series of questions--my academic background, my 
professional experiences, my policy knowledge, my interest in working 
in the office. But at the very end of the interview, the Senator asked 
me a pointed question. He led into the question by indicating that he 
had seen listed some hobbies on my resume, and one of those hobbies was 
running. So he asked me pointedly: How fast can you run 3 miles? I 
quickly told him I thought I could break 18 minutes. A half hour later, 
I got a phone call saying I was hired. Looking back, I am not so sure 
it was because of my policy chops.
  I learned a lot working for this man. I fondly remember his penchant 
for ice cream and the stacks and stacks of books in his office. I 
believe he read every one.
  Senator Lugar would from time to time invite staff members or interns 
to run with him on the Mall. There was one rule: Never ever run in 
front of the Senator. He was, after all, a leader, a Rhodes Scholar, a 
Navy veteran, mayor of Indianapolis where he spurred economic growth, 
which is still spoken of today, by consolidating the city and county 
governments into Unigov.
  As a U.S. Senator, he led on food security, energy independence, and 
free trade. At a time when nuclear proliferation was regarded as 
civilization's greatest threat, Senator Lugar helped save the world. 
The Nunn-Lugar Act, for which he is most well known, has led to the 
securing and destruction of thousands of weapons of mass destruction 
and delivery devices.
  Dick Lugar was a very shrewd politician until his last days. His 
instincts were very good. I know this from personal experience. In 
fact, last year, he and I did a forum together at Indiana University. 
Present on the panel were a former World Food Prize winner, the leader 
of an international NGO, Senator Lugar, and I. After formal 
presentations were done and some questions were asked by the moderator, 
questions were opened up to the audience. Some particularly difficult 
questions were tendered initially, and whenever one of those questions 
was asked, Senator Lugar would put on that trademark smile of his--and 
everyone back

[[Page S2501]]

home knows what I am talking about. He would just look over at me and 
let the junior Senator from Indiana field that question. After about 
three or four times, I decided it was his turn, so I tried to use his 
method right back at him. He simply smiled back at me until I couldn't 
stand the silence anymore. I was the first to break. The man still had 
the gift. The entire audience laughed. He was not to be underestimated.
  He was not to be underestimated as a boss in the impact he could have 
on a young, idealistic staffer looking for role models in public life. 
He was not to be underestimated as a mentor who understood that the 
most important thing a leader can do is to simply set a good example--
comport yourself in a way that others might want to model. He was not 
to be underestimated as a human being. Richard Lugar had a heart. He 
ran for office not to be somebody, but to do things, important things 
to improve the lives of hundreds of millions--in the end, billions of 
people around the world.
  Dick Lugar was the gold standard. He leaves a legacy as an exemplar 
of wisdom, civility, and bipartisanship. Always staying true to his 
temperament, he was a quiet man, a dignified statesman. He thought 
before he spoke. He emphasized substance over personality. In short, he 
set the bar for public leaders, and he set it high. I would go further 
and say that he set the bar high for leaders, more generally.
  We should all look to Dick Lugar. We should all learn from his 
example.
  I am not sure we will ever see another Richard Lugar. I sure pray we 
do. May God watch over him and his family during this difficult time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, you just heard the story from Senator 
Young. He had the benefit of knowing Richard Lugar more recently.
  My story is a little different. I am going to have to think back to 
45 years ago. I was between my sophomore and junior years at Wabash 
College. I never knew I had an interest in politics, let alone that 
someday I would be serving in the Lugar seat. How life drives you in 
certain directions.
  I remember that Richard Lugar took on Senator Birch Bayh, who I think 
had served several terms--he recently passed away himself, another icon 
of Hoosier politics--and I said that I wanted to get involved. When you 
have a man like Richard Lugar, who took a risk, stuck his neck out to 
run for mayor after he had been on a school board--ironically, I was on 
a school board for 10 years when I decided to stick my neck out to run 
for State legislator--you think back about how life drives you in 
certain directions.
  With Richard Lugar, most notably, during his entire life, he lived 
with character and integrity.
  I think back to when I first met him. I was dressed in a white 
turtleneck with a blue blazer and plaid pants. Wow, I can't believe we 
even dressed that way back in the seventies. I found those pictures 
stored away in a box about 4 or 5 years ago. I pulled them out, and my 
high school sweetheart, my wife now--she and I were looking at Dick as 
he was preparing to run for Senate. The look on our faces, looking into 
the face of someone with his stature, really stood out.
  When you get this far down the trail, I get asked: Who were your 
mentors who got you to run for school board, State rep, and then the 
Senate? Mostly, it would have been my parents and my community. I say 
that often. But if there was one politician I would have looked up to, 
even when I wasn't certain I ever wanted to get involved in politics at 
all, I would look back to that year, back in the midseventies, when I 
decided to do it.
  He was in the Senate for a long time. During the entirety of his 
terms, he always did it to where, as a Hoosier and as an American, you 
were proud of him. The thing he did as well as anyone is that he was 
able to look across the aisle in times when we were less polarized. 
Now, I think that trait, more than ever, would be something we need to 
pay attention to.
  When you close the chapter on one individual's life, one whose life 
was as exemplary as Richard Lugar's, it should mostly be inspiration 
for others to follow in his footsteps.
  I know in the State of Indiana--in an op-ed that was just put out by 
an individual, it cites Richard Lugar as the most important public 
servant ever to come from our State. Gosh, I think you would have to 
say there was a lot of credibility to push that point of view.
  All I can tell you is that for the time I am here in the Lugar seat, 
I intend to do what he did. On things he knew a little something about, 
he stuck his neck out, made a statement, and he led. In the entirety of 
his career here in the Senate, he was impeccable in his integrity and 
character. Gosh, we could sure use a good dose of that in this day and 
age.
  It is an honor for me to be serving in his seat, and I hope to do 
even half as good a job in my stint here as he did over many, many 
years.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Cooper nomination?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
upcoming vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Ex.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--31

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harris
       
  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 majority leader.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture 
is invoked, the postcloture time on the R. Clarke Cooper nomination 
expire at 2:15 p.m. today. I further ask that if confirmed, the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. Finally, I 
ask that following the cloture vote on the R. Clarke Cooper nomination, 
the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________