EXECUTIVE SESSION; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 72
(Senate - May 02, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S2580-S2584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the 
following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Rodolfo Armando Ruiz II, 
of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern 
District of Florida.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                              Barr Hearing

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Attorney General Barr's performance in 
yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearing was abysmal. It raised all 
types of questions about his willingness to be a faithful steward of 
the law. Of the several outlandish claims, one stood out. One of them 
should send shivers down the spine of anyone who believes in this 
democracy. It would probably send shivers down the spines of the 
Founding Fathers if they were to hear this Attorney General say what he 
said. Attorney General Barr said yesterday that the President could not 
have obstructed justice because he believed he was falsely accused. He 
even went further. He made a broad principle.
  Here is what he said:


[[Page S2581]]


  

       [If an investigation is] based on false allegations, the 
     president does not have to sit there constitutionally and 
     allow it to run its course. The president could terminate 
     that proceeding and not have it be corrupt intent because he 
     was falsely accused.

  What a statement. If the President himself believes he has been 
falsely accused, he can terminate any investigation or proceeding 
against him. Any at all? Is that the determination in the President's 
own head and in nobody else's? I am sending a letter to the Attorney 
General this morning and am asking him a whole bunch of questions based 
on that awful, confounding statement.
  First, we know he had a theory of the unitary executive. He issued 
that letter before he was chosen as Attorney General, and many believe 
that is why he was chosen. Yet this is the first time he had stated it 
so crassly and so baldly as Attorney General. Does he stand by that or 
was it a mistake? That will be my first question.
  Does he stand by the statement that he said yesterday, based on false 
allegations, that the President does not have to sit there 
constitutionally and allow it to run its course? ``The president could 
terminate that proceeding and not have it be corrupt intent because he 
was being falsely accused.'' He could terminate the proceeding. So who 
is the determiner of what a false allegation is? Is it the President 
himself solely? I am going to ask Attorney General Barr that question.
  What about other proceedings and investigations? Let's say one of the 
President's family members is being investigated. If the President 
determines that it is based on false allegations, does he have the 
unilateral power to terminate the proceeding? What if it is one of the 
President's business associates, and the President believes they are 
false allegations? Does he have the ability to terminate? What if it is 
one of his political allies? Again, does he have the ability to 
terminate?
  I will also ask him: Does that mean that Richard Nixon, who certainly 
believed he was falsely accused, could have simply dismissed the entire 
Watergate investigation? Is that what the Attorney General believes?
  I mean, my God, what President doesn't believe he is being falsely 
accused? If this were to become the actual standard, then no President 
could be guilty of obstructing a Federal investigation, and every 
President would have the right to terminate any investigation--
certainly, about that President and maybe about many others who would 
have some relationship to the President.
  Attorney General Barr's comments are as close as they can get to 
saying the President should be above the law. So I will be writing him 
a letter and sending it to him this morning, asking him explicitly 
these questions and asking him if he stands by his statements. If he 
does, he should not be Attorney General. I will await his answers. I 
hope he doesn't stonewall as he has been doing over in the House.
  (Mrs. HYDE-SMITH assumed the Chair.)


              Attorney General Barr and the Mueller Report

  Madam President, on a related matter, one of the clearest takeaways 
from yesterday's hearing, in addition to the Attorney General's 
astounding statement that the President could terminate any 
investigation or procedure against him if he believed it were based on 
false facts, was the discrepancy between the Attorney General's 
opinions and the conclusions of the Mueller report.
  My colleague Senator Harris masterfully also uncovered that the 
Attorney General did not examine any of the underlying evidence in the 
Mueller report before making a prosecutorial decision and, to his 
knowledge, neither did the Deputy Attorney General. The arrogance of 
these men is amazing. This is one of the most serious issues we face. 
At least half of the country believes it is very serious--more than 
half. Yet they don't even bother to look at the underlying evidence 
before they issue a statement that indicates the President has been 
exonerated--at least in the President's own mind.
  But that is to say nothing of the fact that there are so many 
unanswered questions about the reasoning behind some of Special Counsel 
Mueller's decisions, regardless of what Barr thought or did or wrote.
  So it is imperative that Mueller come to testify. The result is that 
we have a gap. We have a gap of understanding of key details in the 
Mueller probe--a gap that leaves a cloud hanging over this country, 
over this President, over this Justice Department; a gap that could 
easily be erased by having the special counsel come to the Senate and 
testify.
  So I was frankly shocked, appalled--I thought it wasn't true; it must 
have been a misquote--when I read on Twitter that my friend the 
chairman, Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said 
that he would not ask Mueller to testify, that he would send Mueller a 
letter asking him to respond if he disagreed with the Attorney 
General's testimony, but not invite him to testify.
  ``It is over,'' he repeated to the committee and then to me on the 
floor when I, really, confronted him, even though he is my friend, 
because I was so amazed about this--when I confronted him here on the 
floor of the Senate.
  He modified his request after we talked to say that if Mueller said 
that he was misquoted, he could come. That is not the way to do this.
  Mueller should come--no ands, ifs, or buts. The American people 
deserve it. Frankly, my friend Lindsey Graham is being totally derelict 
in his responsibilities as chair of the Judiciary Committee not to 
invite Mr. Mueller.
  So I would ask Lindsey Graham to reconsider, to think about the 
country, to think about his long history of trying to be fair and 
often--not so much recently, but often--bipartisan. He is someone I 
worked with, and he showed great courage on immigration. He must 
reconsider. He cannot have the Judiciary Committee simply be a 
political arm of the President, which is where it is devolving under 
his chairmanship.
  Congressional oversight requires that Mueller come. The Constitution, 
if you read it, would indicate that it is perfectly within our ability 
and obligation to bring Mueller here.
  Please, Senator Graham, reconsider. Invite Mueller. His testimony is 
desperately needed to clarify what he actually meant and said after Mr. 
Barr's actions.


                           Women's Healthcare

  Madam President, finally, on women's healthcare, last month the Trump 
administration proposed instituting a radical title X gag rule, which 
would have regulated the kinds of conversations women could have with 
their doctors and risk cutting off family planning clinics from 
millions of dollars of Federal funding.
  The rule was set to go into effect on May 3, but courts around the 
country have granted preliminary injunctions to prevent it from taking 
effect, as they should.
  Those decisions are great news and should be celebrated as an 
affirmation of a woman's right to make her own medical choices and not 
to have some court, some judge, or some legislator tell a woman what to 
do with her medical choices.
  But they are also a reminder that President Trump and congressional 
Republicans continue to undermine the rights of women to make their own 
healthcare decisions. Since taking office, President Trump and 
Republicans across the country have launched an assault on women's 
reproductive freedoms and women's health. In Mississippi, in Georgia, 
and in Kentucky, Republican statehouses are forcing through radical 
proposals that would dramatically limit women's ability to make their 
own choices.
  Here in Washington, the Trump administration continues to seek the 
total destruction of our healthcare law. Just yesterday the 
administration issued a brief arguing that the entire Affordable Care 
Act is unconstitutional--an opinion that would gut protections for the 
133 million Americans with preexisting conditions and strip away 
healthcare from millions of American families.
  The House has sent us a bill that would protect people's abilities 
who have preexisting conditions to continue to get insurance, but the 
Senate is not acting, and that leads me to my last point.


                       Senate Legislative Agenda

  Madam President, we have just concluded another legislative week in 
the Senate, but it was a legislative week in

[[Page S2582]]

name only. There was no legislation. As you may have seen, we have done 
little more than process nominations.
  Later this afternoon, we will see what the majority leader plans for 
next week, but I have a suspicion--just more nominations.
  Meanwhile, there is no shortage of legislation we could work on. The 
House of Representatives has passed no fewer than 100 pieces of 
legislation. Guess how many of those 100 have received consideration on 
the floor of the Senate. Zero. Zero of the House-passed bills on 
legislation.
  Commonsense background checks, voting rights, paycheck fairness, 
defending protections for Americans with preexisting conditions--all 
bipartisan, all supported by the overwhelming majority of the American 
public, but in the Senate there is no action--nothing. We have become a 
conveyor belt for nominations and a graveyard for legislation.
  I have said again and again to Leader McConnell that if he doesn't 
like every aspect of the House Democratic bills, that is fine. That is 
democracy. Let's debate them. Let's have amendments.
  If the leader truly wants to start from scratch, we would love to 
hear his plan. If he doesn't think we should close loopholes in our 
background check system, then, what is his plan to reduce gun violence 
and mass shootings?
  He doesn't like the Green New Deal--fine. What is his plan to deal 
with climate change?
  Before Leader McConnell became majority leader, he promised that if 
he were in charge, he would do things differently in the Senate. He 
would have open debates, an open amendment process. He would have us 
vote on the issues of the day, no matter which party the ideas come 
from.
  Eventually, the American people are going to take a hard look at this 
obstructionist Republican majority of the 116th Congress and wonder 
what the heck we did with our time. When they realize that the 
Republican Senate has spent nearly all of its time so far 
rubberstamping nominees--so many of whom are unqualified and so many of 
whose views, whether they be judicial or executive appointments, are so 
far out of the American mainstream and ignoring real legislation that 
could help middle class families--I wouldn't blame them for wanting to 
change the leadership of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                              S.J. Res. 7

  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, in the United States, American foreign 
policy is not determined by just one person. The Constitution makes 
that clear. Article I grants Congress the power to declare war, not the 
President.
  Consistent with that responsibility, Democrats and Republicans in 
this body worked together to pass a bipartisan resolution directing the 
President to end U.S. support for Saudi-led hostilities in Yemen. I am 
a proud cosponsor of that bill, which passed both Chambers of Congress 
in recent months.
  We made it unmistakably clear that our involvement in Yemen is not 
authorized by Congress, but the President has chosen to sidestep the 
bipartisan majority by not signing this bill into law.
  In doing so, he is sustaining the crisis through the continuing 
refueling of Saudi aircraft and other activities.
  The American people are not asking the President for this. Taxpayers, 
certainly, do not want to pay for it.
  I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I can assure you 
that supporting Saudi Arabia's operations in Yemen is nowhere--
nowhere--to be found in our national defense strategy.
  I urge my colleagues to reject continued support for Saudi Arabia's 
military actions in Yemen. Congress must do its job and vote to 
override the President's veto.
  We have an opportunity this week to help make the suffering in Yemen 
come to an end. Let's not forget that 22 million people in Yemen still 
need humanitarian assistance or protection. More than 8 million people 
still go hungry every single day. Sixteen million Yemenis still don't 
have clean water, resulting in pervasive disease outbreaks. Children 
are still dying every single day. Every 10 minutes, a child under 5 
dies in Yemen from a preventable cause, according to the United 
Nations.
  For many people, their survival is a daily challenge and struggle. 
Their future hangs, literally, by a thread.
  In addition to disease, starvation, and displacement, the people of 
Yemen are subjected to indiscriminate bombings led by Saudi Arabia.
  Let me be clear. Bombs will not resolve this conflict. All parties 
must come together and work toward a peaceful solution that places the 
dignity of all Yemeni people at the center of those negotiations, and 
we can help facilitate that. That is what the American people want.
  If you go to Michigan, you can meet with some of the Yemeni Americans 
who just want the same thing that everybody else does--help for those 
who are suffering and meaningful steps toward peace.
  American diplomacy can help to resolve this tragedy, and we must make 
every effort to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                       Remembering Richard Lugar

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the country lost one of its elder 
statesmen this week with the death of former Senator Richard Lugar.
  As Members of Congress, one of the most important parts of our job is 
keeping our Nation secure. We only hope that when we leave Congress, we 
will have left our Nation a little safer than when we found it.
  Richard Lugar never had to wonder if he had done that. As the Soviet 
Union was collapsing, Dick stepped forward and shepherded the passage 
of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which supported 
the dismantling and decommissioning of nuclear weapons in former Soviet 
countries before the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists or 
rogue nations.
  As a direct result of his efforts, over the years, thousands of 
weapons have been destroyed--from warheads to missiles to chemical 
weapons. Thanks to his work, our Nation and our world are more secure.
  Dick's achievements on global security are the kind of legacy most of 
us can only hope to have, but, of course, that is not all that Dick 
Lugar did in his Senate career.
  As Indiana's longest serving Senator, he also served as a leader on 
agricultural issues and on food security. Even after he had left the 
Senate, he continued to advocate for the issues that he cared about as 
president of the Lugar Center, which, among other things, focuses on 
global food security and preventing the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Dick will be sorely missed. My thoughts and prayers are with his 
family, particularly his wife, Char, and their four sons, Mark, Bob, 
John, and David.


                               Tax Reform

  Madam President, over the Easter break, I got to visit a number of 
South Dakota businesses, like Persona Signs in Madison and Energy 
Dynamics in Carthage.
  Visiting with South Dakotans is the best part of my job, and it is 
the best way to learn how government policies are affecting South 
Dakotans and what South Dakotans need from Washington.
  One thing that has been wonderful to see over the past year is how 
tax reform is benefiting South Dakota businesses. Businesses are 
benefiting directly from things like rate cuts and enhanced expensing, 
and they are also benefitting from the economic growth that tax reform 
has helped produce.
  I was excited to see that DeGeest Steel Works in Tea, Valley Queen 
Cheese in Milbank, and Royal Canin pet food in North Sioux City are all 
in the process of expanding.
  Tax reform was a huge step forward in creating an economy where 
businesses can grow, expand, and create jobs, but there is more work to 
be done to ensure that South Dakota businesses have all the resources 
they need to thrive.
  One big priority for Republicans is passing the United States-Mexico-
Canada free trade agreement, which would help to grow our economy, 
raise wages, and create 176,000 new jobs. Canada and Mexico are top 
markets for U.S. agricultural products, and South Dakota

[[Page S2583]]

farmers, ranchers, and businesses would all see benefits from the 
passage of this agreement.
  We also want to conclude an agreement with China, which would provide 
a boost to South Dakota soybean farmers, as well as other South Dakota 
businesses.
  South Dakota farms and businesses depend upon trade, and I am 
committed to making sure that they have access to the markets they 
need.
  With our thriving economy and low unemployment, finding qualified 
workers is a challenge for businesses nationwide, but it is 
particularly a challenge in our State. Unemployment in South Dakota is 
a remarkably low 2.8 percent--a full percentage point lower than the 
current measurement for the United States as a whole.
  While a low unemployment rate is generally a good thing, it can make 
it extremely difficult for South Dakota businesses to find the workers 
they need. That is why I have made expanding the H-2B Visa Program a 
priority.
  Many South Dakota businesses rely on workers who temporarily come to 
the United States through this program. I was very pleased that the 
Homeland Security Secretary granted the request of a number of 
Senators, including myself, to issue additional H2-B visas for 2019. I 
will continue to encourage the Department of Homeland Security to 
expedite the release of these visas.
  I have also introduced legislation that would expand the number of H-
2B visas available for States, including South Dakota, with 
unemployment rates at or below 3.5 percent.
  Another way to ensure businesses have qualified workers is to expand 
access to career and technical education. Career and technical 
education programs are key to expanding opportunity for American 
workers and giving them the skills they need to succeed in the 21st 
century economy. Last year, Congress passed the Strengthening Career 
and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. This law gives States 
greater flexibility over career and technical education programs and 
will help provide better access to training for more than 11 million 
students and workers.
  In addition, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee is currently working on a reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act, which will also address career and technical education.
  Republicans are committed to continuing to expand opportunity for 
America's workers. Here in Washington, we can do a lot to help our 
economy by getting government out of the way, making sure that small 
and larger businesses aren't weighed down with heavy taxes or excessive 
regulations, but ultimately it is American business men and women who 
are the real drivers of growth.
  People like the four generations of Meyers, who have worked at A.H. 
Meyer & Sons in Winfred, SD, supporting the South Dakota beekeeping 
industry or the three generations of the DeGeests, who have worked at 
DeGeest Steel in Tea. The energy, innovation, and commitment displayed 
by businesses like these is what powers America.
  I am grateful to all the businesses who took the time to talk with me 
and to show me around over the past few weeks and throughout the year. 
I will continue to fight for those businesses here in Washington, DC, 
and I look forward to seeing more of the great work that they will 
continue to do in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                              S. Res. 120

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to add my name to S. Res. 
120. This resolution would make it the sense of the Senate that we in 
this Chamber oppose the global BDS movement and other efforts to 
delegitimize the State of Israel.
  I have long said that the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement 
targeting Israel--the BDS movement--is too often used as a vehicle for 
anti-Semitism.
  The resolution would affirm our commitment to a two-state solution in 
the Middle East, with a future viable, democratic Palestinian State 
living side by side with the democratic State of Israel in peace, in 
security, and with mutual recognition.
  It would make clear that particularly in this climate of increased 
anti-Semitism, we do not agree with efforts to delegitimize the State 
of Israel. I agree with these principles, and it is why I am supporting 
this resolution.
  I would also like to say this: I have made it clear in the past, and 
my opinion is no different today, that I will not support any 
legislation that will weaken Americans' First Amendment rights. In this 
country, we have a fundamental constitutional right to express our 
opinions and speak out about what we believe in. We have a right to 
engage in civil disobedience. We have a right to protest. This 
resolution recognizes all of that. It recognizes the right of people to 
protest and express their opinions about whatever country or whatever 
policy they want, but the Senate is also entitled to our opinion, and I 
support making it our opinion in this body that we oppose the global 
BDS movement, that we want a two-state solution, and that we want to 
stand by our alliance with Israel.
  I am proud to stand up for these ideals. I am proud to speak out 
about them. I encourage all New Yorkers and all Americans all over the 
country to keep speaking out what they believe in too.
  I also want to make a broader and critically important point here; 
that is, today we cannot ignore the anti-Semitism that is on the rise 
all around us. It is more important now than ever that we stand 
together against all forms of anti-Semitism.
  Just this past weekend, a hateful, anti-Semitic White supremacist 
walked into a synagogue in California on the Sabbath, during a 
celebration, and horrifically opened fire with a weapon of war on 
people who were praying--praying--on the last day of Passover. Six 
months before that, we mourned the tragedy at the Tree of Life 
synagogue in Pittsburgh, when another hateful, anti-Semitic White 
supremacist walked into a synagogue on the Sabbath and slaughtered 
people with another weapon of war.
  New Yorkers in my home State have had to endure hateful graffiti with 
swastikas and even outright physical attacks. The FBI has reported a 
spike in hate crimes all over our country, so has the Anti-Defamation 
League.
  The ADL just released its annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents. 
These cases of harassment, vandalism, and assault aren't just happening 
in one place; they are happening in people's businesses, in their 
schools, in their cemeteries, in their synagogues, and in our public 
parks. It was their third highest year on record. They are not just 
happening in our country either.
  In Europe, far-right political parties are winning elected office. We 
are seeing new attempts to deny the Holocaust. It is all unacceptable. 
Given the rise of anti-Semitism, it is particularly concerning to me 
that the U.N. is so focused on continuously and singularly vilifying 
Israel, in contrast to all other nations. That is why I have taken so 
many steps so often to call out the U.N.'s unfair actions, and it is 
why I will continue to call on the U.N. to abstain from its unfair 
treatment of Israel.
  The United States is supposed to be a safe haven for Israel and a 
safe haven for the Jewish people. It is supposed to be a safe haven for 
people of all religions. You are supposed to be able to worship freely 
here and to honor the Sabbath here without coming under attack. We must 
never let that change. We must not allow bigotry and violence to become 
normal and routine. We must not look the other way when we hear slurs 
and witness harassment.
  Anti-Semitism is real and dangerous, but it is not going to stop on 
its own. Only our words and our actions can do that. We need to show 
the world that we are more united than ever to fight against anti-
Semitism and against all other forms of racism and bigotry. We need to 
send a powerful message of solidarity by standing with the Jewish 
community, praying with them, and helping assure them that in this dark 
moment, they are not alone.
  Let me end with this. I take my faith very seriously. It grounds me. 
I am grateful that I have the opportunity to attend Bible studies with 
my colleagues in the Senate and that I can attend a weekly Prayer 
Breakfast. I believe we are here now, at this moment, for a reason. We 
are all called to end

[[Page S2584]]

hate; we are all called to speak out against the darkness; we are all 
called to reject anti-Semitism; and we are all called to defend the 
vulnerable. As a body, we must answer that call.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                       Tribute to Bruce D. Benson

  Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, today I come to the floor to celebrate 
the life and career of Bruce Davey Benson or, as so many people know, 
Bruce D. Benson or, to all of us, just Bruce.
  I first met Bruce Benson in 1994. Now, he will not remember this at 
all, but I remember that I was a young college student at Colorado 
State University. We were in the parking lot before a game. I had the 
incredible honor of being one of the chosen ones to take the ram, our 
mascot, around the football team at the football game before sporting 
events throughout Colorado State University.
  I remember, in 1994, when the campaign for Governor began, Bruce 
Benson threw his hat in the ring to run against Roy Romer. He was 
working the crowd at this Colorado State football game, and he came up 
to those of us who were the ram handlers that were with the mascot, 
shook our hands, and introduced himself. So from that moment, the first 
chance I got to meet Bruce Benson in 1994, I knew it was going to be an 
incredible opportunity and relationship that would lead into years of 
public service for myself because of how incredible his public service 
had been to the State of Colorado and the legacy he built.
  This July, Bruce will be retiring as the president of the University 
of Colorado system, which currently oversees four campuses in Colorado: 
the University of Colorado Denver, CU Colorado Springs, the University 
of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and the CU Boulder campus--the 
campus where I earned my law degree.
  He has a long history of bettering the lives of Coloradoans. Prior to 
his appointment as president of the University of Colorado, Bruce 
established himself in business, philanthropy, politics, and education.
  Bruce graduated from the University of Colorado in 1964 with a 
bachelor of arts in geology and founded the Benson Mineral Group. This 
is a great story of somebody pulling themselves up by their own 
bootstraps--taking the education he was able to earn himself and using 
it to build an incredible life of opportunity for his family and the 
people of Colorado. What started out as a $6,000 drilling rig on the 
back of his truck turned into a hugely successful operation, with a 
reach extending into banking, real estate, and even cable television.
  Bruce prioritized his community and the education of others within 
it. Over the next 20 years, he would serve on the Colorado Commission 
of Higher Education, the board of trustees for the Metro State College 
of Denver, P-20 Education Coordinating Council, and the Governor's Blue 
Ribbon Panel for Higher Education for the 21st Century, all of which he 
chaired at one point.
  He was involved in Colorado politics, serving as the chair for the 
Colorado Republican Party, helping to identify candidates and being an 
instrumental part in candidates' campaigns over many decades.
  Bruce was appointed to the board of directors for the National Park 
Foundation and served on the National Endowment for the Humanities--a 
position that required his confirmation right here in front of the U.S. 
Senate.
  I remember the work he did on education issues--lobbying other 
Senators, fighting for Colorado dollars, fighting for policies that 
would help better Children's Hospital in Colorado, and fighting for 
more funding for children's healthcare. After nearly 45 years in 
business in Colorado, Bruce was inducted into the Colorado Business 
Hall of Fame in 2009.
  There is a saying about President Franklin Roosevelt, FDR. One time 
when somebody was asked if they knew President Roosevelt, they said no, 
but they felt President Roosevelt knew them. I think that saying can be 
applied to Bruce Benson because even if you didn't know him or don't 
know him in Colorado, odds are, if you are a Coloradan, he has had a 
positive impact on your life. He welcomed diversity in the classroom, 
not only in background but also in thought. He never wanted the 
university to teach people what to think; he wanted the university to 
teach them how to think. Bruce learned long ago that he didn't know 
everything, but if you surround yourself with the best, the rest will 
follow.
  A lot has changed over the last 10 years of his leadership, and so 
has the university and the State we both call home. We don't know where 
we would be today without Bruce's fierce work ethic and drive to 
educate those around him, but we know the future wouldn't be nearly as 
bright. For all this and so much more, we owe him a great many thanks.
  To President Benson, thank you for your service to our great State of 
Colorado, and thank you for your friendship.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all post cloture 
time is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Ruiz 
nomination?
  Mr. GARDNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) 
and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Scott of Florida). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 8, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Ex.]

                                YEAS--90

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     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
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--8

     Gillibrand
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Peters
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bennet
     Booker
       
  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.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________