EXECUTIVE SESSION; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 37
(Senate - February 25, 2020)

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 S1124-S1128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Robert 
Anthony Molloy, of the Virgin Islands, to be Judge for the District 
Court of the Virgin Islands for a term of ten years.

[[Page S1125]]

  

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the coronavirus has already spread to 
30 countries, including South Korea, Italy, Iran, and 53 confirmed 
cases here in the United States. Officials at the World Health 
Organization are now warning world governments to begin preparing for a 
pandemic--a pandemic.
  Here in the United States, the Trump administration has been caught 
flatfooted. The administration has no plan to deal with the 
coronavirus--no plan--and seemingly no urgency to develop one. Even 
now, after the virus has already become a worldwide health crisis, with 
rapidly growing economic risks, the Trump administration is scrambling 
to respond. We have a crisis, and the Trump administration is trying to 
build an airplane while already in midflight. The harsh fact of the 
matter is, the Trump administration has shown towering and dangerous 
incompetence when it comes to the coronavirus.
  Coronavirus testing kits have not been widely distributed to our 
hospitals and public health labs. Those without these kits must send 
samples all the way to Atlanta rather than testing them on site, 
wasting precious time as the virus spreads.
  The administration has eliminated--eliminated--the global health 
security teams. That is global health security, just what we need now. 
They have eliminated the teams from both the National Security Council 
and the Department of Homeland Security. And thanks to years of cuts to 
the global health division at the Centers for Disease Control by the 
Trump administration, the CDC has been forced to reduce the number of 
countries it operates in from 49 to 10.
  These are our frontlines. If we can deal with these diseases before 
they get to the United States, we are a lot safer, and the 
administration has mercilessly and thoughtlessly cut, cut, cut these 
teams. And then, only a month ago, even as we began to hear about the 
coronavirus in China, the administration sent us a budget that proposed 
cutting the CDC budget by 16 percent. The CDC is the agency on the 
frontlines that keeps us safe, keeps us healthy, and prevents American 
lives from being lost.
  Four words describe the administration's response to the coronavirus: 
towering and dangerous incompetence. When officials at the CDC 
recommended that infected passengers from a cruise ship not be flown to 
the United States alongside the noninfected passengers, the State 
Department overruled them. Shockingly, they put infected and 
noninfected on the same plane. Was this because of politics? Did 
somebody call President Trump or someone else? There are rumors to that 
effect. We don't know if they are true. They should be checked out.
  Typical of the administration, though, or certainly typical in so 
many different instances, decisions were made based on politics and 
optics rather than on the informed opinion of our scientists and 
doctors. It is like the Soviet apparatchiks overruling the nuclear 
scientists at Chernobyl to avoid embarrassment to the regime.
  Federal agencies have been so hollowed out that one of the key 
figures in responding to the coronavirus in our government is Ken 
Cuccinelli, an immigration hard-liner ideologue with no public health 
expertise. Yesterday, Mr. Cuccinelli posted a tweet actually asking for 
information about the spread of the coronavirus. The one person the 
administration can come up with to help deal with the issue then emails 
and asks for information. This is, of course, because he has no 
knowledge. He is not a scientist. He is not a disease preventer. This 
is towering and dangerous incompetence.
  President Trump, meanwhile, has said that the coronavirus might 
``miraculously'' fade once the weather gets warmer--towering and 
dangerous incompetence. With no plan to deal with this potential health 
crisis, the administration last night issued an emergency budget 
request. It was too little and too late. It asked Congress to reprogram 
funding dedicated to fighting Ebola--still considered an epidemic in 
the Democratic Republic of the Congo--to deal with coronavirus. That is 
robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is further evidence that the 
administration is not taking the coronavirus as seriously as it should. 
I said as much last night here on the floor.
  The President seemed upset about my criticism of the budget proposal 
this morning. I am glad he has noticed. Maybe he will start taking this 
issue more seriously. Now that I have gotten the President's attention, 
I want to lay out five things the Trump administration must do to get a 
handle on the coronavirus.
  The administration must, at a minimum, restore the cuts to the CDC 
budget. Trump's cuts to the CDC budget have had dramatic effects, 
shrinking the agency's footprint abroad to help combat pandemics. The 
administration must commit now to reverse it.
  The Trump administration must appoint a point person--a czar--to 
implement a real plan to manage the coronavirus: an independent, 
nonpartisan, global health expert with real expertise, not a political 
appointee like Cuccinelli--somebody who is a scientist who knows these 
issues and can coordinate the myriad Federal agencies to fight the 
fight and prevent American lives from being lost.
  The administration must increase its emergency budget request to at 
least $3.1 billion with no cuts--no cuts--for Ebola funding, which is 
still raging in Africa. The $3.1 billion is the amount our public 
health organizations say is necessary. The funding must also include a 
commitment to reimburse States and localities for all expenses related 
to addressing the outbreak.
  The Trump administration must expedite delivery of diagnostic testing 
kits to all 50 States and public health laboratories so the tests don't 
have to be sent--these samples don't have to be sent to Atlanta and 
people wait, wait, and wait for a result as the disease spreads.
  And finally, the administration must stop the proliferation of junk 
insurance plans that do not even cover coronavirus tests and other 
related healthcare services. This is typical of why we have opposed 
these junk plans. They cover hardly anything. Now that we have this 
crisis--the coronavirus--so many people who have these junk plans will 
not get tested because they can't afford it and because their plans 
don't cover it, a glaring example of why junk health plans--the 
administration's solution, it seems, to the health crisis--are totally 
inadequate and dangerous.
  These are five basic steps that any competent administration would 
have already taken in preparation for the pandemic. There may be others 
as well, but this is what happens when you have an administration and a 
President so skeptical of science, so contemptuous of expertise, so 
practiced in obscuring inconvenient facts, and so disdainful of 
organization and preparation.
  Madam President, you need to get your act together now. This is a 
crisis. We need you to act. We need this administration to finally do 
the right thing after weeks of dithering and exhibiting towering and 
dangerous incompetence.


                           Women's Healthcare

  Madam President, on another matter also related to healthcare, today 
Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans have scheduled votes on two 
divisive, anti-choice, anti-women, and anti-family bills. The Senate 
has voted them down before; it will again.
  After weeks of complaining that the impeachment trial of President 
Trump was preventing the Senate from doing the people's business, this 
is what the Senate Republicans have proposed: fake, dishonest, and 
extreme legislation that has nothing to do with improving the lives of 
ordinary Americans. I say ``fake'' because these bills pretend we don't 
already have laws on the books that protect infants. Additional 
legislation is completely unnecessary, irrational, a show with no 
positive effect on the women of America who need healthcare. 
Healthcare, Mr.

[[Page S1126]]

President. Healthcare, Republican Senators. Healthcare. That is what 
women want, not these show bills that appeal to an extreme view. The 
American people know it. The American women know it.
  Additional legislation such as proposed today is at best unnecessary 
and irrational. But it is dishonest because these bills are not 
intended to fix real problems faced by real Americans; they are 
intended to provoke fear and misunderstanding about a very difficult 
issue so Republicans can score political points with their far-right 
base. Any Senator who thinks this is going to appeal to the mainstream 
of their constituents--women throughout their States--is missing the 
point.
  I say ``extreme'' because these bills would, in effect, criminalize 
women's reproductive care and intimidate healthcare providers--another 
example of the Senate Republicans' war on Roe v. Wade and a woman's 
constitutionally protected right to make her own private healthcare 
decisions and to not have politicians tell a woman what to do.
  Putting these already defeated bills up for a show vote is not a 
good-faith attempt to improve the lives of everyday Americans--
particularly everyday American women--as Republicans claim they want to 
desperately do. Every single Senate Republican knows these bills cannot 
and will not pass, but they are putting them on the floor anyway to 
pander to the hard right and to cover up the fact that they will not 
provide good healthcare for women, that they are voting day in and day 
out to take away the right to healthcare of women throughout America 
and letting the administration, led by President Trump, do just that.
  If Republicans were serious about getting back to the people's 
business, there is no shortage of bipartisan legislation we could 
consider. Nearly 400 bills have passed the House, hundreds of them on a 
bipartisan basis, and they have collected dust in this Chamber. They 
have gone into Leader McConnell's legislative trash can. On healthcare 
alone, we have legislation to protect Americans with preexisting 
conditions, legislation that would eliminate junk insurance plans, and 
legislation to reduce maternal and infant mortality rates, which my 
colleague from Illinois will talk about, I believe, shortly. All of 
these bills have languished in Leader McConnell's legislative junkyard.
  When Leader McConnell or any Republican says ``Oh, impeachment 
stopped us from doing things,'' look at what we are not doing today--
not only what we are doing, which is meaningless to women, but what we 
are not doing--protecting their healthcare, protecting Roe v. Wade, 
which two-thirds of American women want protected.
  Any of the proposals that are in McConnell's legislative graveyard 
would be better than this anti-choice, anti-women, and anti-family 
legislation, but, typical of Leader McConnell, Republicans have chosen 
once again to play politics on the Senate floor.
  Leader McConnell should stop wasting the few votes he does schedule 
with these shameless political stunts and instead bring legislation to 
the floor that would actually improve the healthcare of the American 
people and of American women in particular.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Loeffler). The Democratic whip is 
recognized.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to note that this morning 
at 8 a.m., an unusual meeting took place in this Capitol Building. It 
was in the area of the building that is reserved for top-secret 
classified briefings. All Members of the Senate were invited. The issue 
at that briefing was the coronavirus.
  I sat through the major part of that briefing before I had to leave 
for another meeting. There wasn't anything in there that should have 
been classified or top secret. If there were ever a time when we need 
to be open, honest, and complete in telling the whole story to the 
American people, it is this moment when we face the coronavirus, which 
started, we believe, in China and is now spreading across the world.
  I back up what the Democratic leader said earlier because the request 
was made at this meeting for some $2 billion in the United States to 
respond to this coronavirus threat. When we questioned 
the administration as to why that number and what they were going to do 
with it, the answers were limited. In fact, when it came to the source 
of the money, they had no answer at all.

  Remember, this is an administration which has consistently asked to 
cut the funding for the Centers for Disease Control. It has been a low 
priority of the Trump administration until we faced this threat, and 
now they have suddenly awakened. It turns out that even in the next 
fiscal year, which begins on October 1, the Trump administration has 
asked to cut the money for the Centers for Disease Control again.
  You ask yourself, who is in charge over there? Who is making the 
basic decisions? Well, it could be the person who has decided that 
every available dollar needs to be put into a wall on the Mexican 
border.
  Think of this for a moment: Ten billion dollars currently sits in an 
account for the building of this wall--unspent. They can't spend it. 
Yet the President recently asked for $3.8 billion more for building his 
almighty wall--which I thought Mexico was going to pay for--and now 
comes at the last minute asking for some $2 billion for the 
coronavirus.
  As one Senator said in the meeting this morning, when it comes down 
to it, if our business is to protect the American people, isn't the 
highest priority to stop the spread of this virus in the United States? 
Of course it is, and that is why it should be a higher priority. No 
wall is going to stop that virus from coming into the United States. 
The President ought to wake up to that reality.
  When you look at the efforts that are being made here in the United 
States and around the world, we can and should do more. I support this 
request for a dramatic increase in funding for this purpose now--now, 
before it spreads across the United States, which God forbid it ever 
does. We don't want it to. We want to make sure we have done everything 
in our power to stop it, and that means empowering those in charge with 
the knowledge, with the expertise, and with the authority to protect 
our families. First and foremost, protect American families. That is a 
much higher priority than any campaign promise this President made 
about a wall on our southern border.
  I support the effort by Senator Schumer asking for some top doc or 
some individual with management authority, management experience, and 
the knowledge of the public health threat we face with this 
coronavirus, to be put in charge to coordinate the myriad agencies that 
will be touched by this campaign to protect America. Now is the time to 
do it. The time to do it--at least now, but it should have been much 
earlier, with more money dedicated to this purpose rather than cutting 
back on these key agencies.


                           Women's Healthcare

  Madam President, on a related topic, related to health, this morning 
Senator Mitch McConnell came to the floor and said that today, this 
afternoon, we are likely to take up two votes on motions to proceed. 
This is so typical now of what we do in the Senate. Instead of bringing 
a measure to the floor with an understanding of an amendment process so 
that we can discuss it fully, vote on it in many different aspects, and 
then come to a conclusion with a majority vote in this body, Senator 
McConnell comes to the floor with another drive-by political hit on the 
issue of women's reproductive health.
  We know what this issue is all about. Many of us who have served for 
years know there is a fundamental difference among those of us here in 
the Senate, and we know what the outcome of this vote will be because 
at least one of these votes was cast last year on exactly the same 
topic. So why would Senator McConnell bring it back? It is to get that 
drive-by shooting when it comes to this political issue. To me, that is 
unfortunate, and I would like to suggest there is a better alternative.


                          Black History Month

  Madam President, this is Black History Month, and I want to take the 
time to celebrate a person who made history when it came to healthcare.
  Helen Octavia Dickens was born in Dayton, OH, in 1909, a daughter of 
a former slave. She attended Crane Junior College in Chicago, now 
Malcolm X

[[Page S1127]]

College. In 1934, she graduated from the University of Illinois College 
of Medicine, Chicago, as the only African-American woman in her class 
of 137 students. She was the university's first Black woman physician 
graduate.
  Dr. Dickens became a specialist in obstetrics, eventually moving to 
Philadelphia to work in a birthing center, where she provided care for 
the poor. While there, she broke barriers by becoming the first 
African-American woman to be admitted into the American College of 
Surgeons, receive board certification in obstetrics and gynecology, and 
practice medicine in Philadelphia.
  Her work to help heal and guide women of all ages was nothing short 
of inspiring and her efforts to shine light on the troubling issue of 
health disparities in the United States that continues to this day. Let 
me be specific.
  America has a long history of medical inequality. Sadly, we know that 
history has not ended. From premature births to premature deaths, 
people of color disproportionately bear the brunt of America's troubled 
healthcare system. On average, they live sicker, die sooner, and go 
without needed medical care more often. Communities of color suffer 
disproportionately from HIV, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, kidney 
failure, prostate cancer, and other medical conditions.
  President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law nearly 10 
years ago. It is still one of my proudest votes. Thanks to that law, 20 
million Americans gained health insurance--more than 1 million in my 
home State of Illinois.
  I am proud to say that law has taken strong steps to address racial 
inequalities in healthcare across America. A report last month found 
that the Affordable Care Act helped narrow racial and ethnic 
disparities in healthcare access and coverage, especially in States 
like mine--Illinois--that expanded the reach of Medicaid. Yet we know 
that better is not nearly good enough when it comes to healthcare. 
Nearly half of Black Americans--46 percent--live in the 15 States that 
did not expand Medicaid coverage after the Affordable Care Act was 
passed.
  Another area of racial disparity is maternal and infant health. I 
raise this issue because instead of these drive-by issue votes, which 
Senator McConnell insists on without debate and without amendment, we 
should be addressing an issue that should have bipartisan support. Let 
me be specific about what I mean.
  The United States ranks 32nd out of the 35 wealthiest nations when it 
comes to infant death, infant mortality. Let me repeat that. Our Nation 
ranks 32nd out of the 35 wealthiest nations when it comes to infant 
mortality, and babies of color are the hardest hit.
  If you are an African-American infant born in America today, you are 
twice as likely to die in the first year of birth compared to White 
infants.
  And the mother giving birth? In the United States, African-American 
women are three to four times more likely to die giving birth than 
other women in this country. In Illinois, sadly, they are six times 
more likely to die.
  The United States is one of only 13 countries in the world where the 
maternal mortality rate is worse now than it was 25 years ago. Instead 
of impaling ourselves politically on the issues that divide us, can we 
come together on an issue that could unite us: that we are going to do 
something in America to reduce the infant and maternal mortality, 
particularly among African Americans.
  I have given a lot of thought to what we can do to try to bridge this 
racial divide to help women and babies of color. For the past two 
Congresses, I have introduced a bill with Illinois Congresswoman Robin 
Kelly called the MOMMA Act. The bill would expand Medicaid coverage for 
new moms from 60 days after birth to a full year postpartum to ensure 
adequate care after the child is delivered. The bill would also ensure 
implicit bias and cultural competency training for healthcare providers 
to help address health disparities in communities of color and increase 
access to doulas.
  We are simply not doing enough to correct this injustice and save the 
lives of new moms and babies across the country. Instead, Senate 
Republicans are pushing two anti-choice bills this day that will do 
nothing--nothing--to help improve maternal and infant outcomes in 
America nor to help address racial disparities that currently exist. If 
they actually wanted to save and improve the lives of new moms and 
babies, they should consider passing legislation like the MOMMA Act, 
which I have just described. I am going to try to call this to the 
floor this afternoon. Wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air in the U.S. 
Senate if, on a bipartisan basis, we could agree to do something about 
this public health crisis affecting infants and mothers across America?
  The fact that we rank so low in the world standings of safety when it 
comes to delivering a baby among African-American parents in this 
country is just unacceptable and unforgivable. Can we muster the 
courage to stop the political shootings here on the floor, this drive-
by shooting of political issues, and instead address an issue which 
truly is a life-and-death matter that we all should agree on? The 
Republicans have a choice this afternoon to join me in this effort.
  I am proud to stand here today and to honor Helen Dickens, the 
African-American doctor I described earlier who passed away in 2001. 
Her fierce advancement in the medical field helped pave the way for 
future doctors, particularly women of color, and led to important 
discoveries in women's health.
  Today, much of what we know about the importance and effectiveness of 
annual OB/GYN visits was influenced by Dr. Dickens' work. With a grant 
from the National Institutes of Health, she helped train general 
practitioners to give women the exams they need to note early detection 
of cervical and uterine cancer. In 1982, the University of Illinois 
honored Dr. Dickens with the Distinguished Alumni Award.
  While the United States has a troubled past in addressing racial 
inequality, we need to learn from the mistakes of the past to ensure 
that all Americans receive the healthcare they deserve in the future.
  Dr. Helen Dickens and many other African-American pioneers give me 
hope for a brighter future.
  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. 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.


                                Abortion

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today we will vote on two pro-life bills: 
the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the Pain-Capable 
Unborn Child Protection Act.
  These bills should be completely uncontroversial. Every one of us in 
this Chamber ought to be able to agree that infants who are born alive 
during an abortion procedure should receive the same care that a baby 
born alive in a hospital would receive.
  Every one of us ought to agree that, at the very least, we should not 
be aborting babies after the point that they can feel pain, but 
unfortunately the abortion extremism in the Democratic Party is such 
that it is unlikely that these two bills will even get a chance to be 
debated.
  We shouldn't even need the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act. It should be obvious that any baby born alive, wherever he or she 
is born, ought to receive care, but with more than one leading Democrat 
over the past year refusing to rule out infanticide, it has become 
clear that we need to underscore that being born alive in an abortion 
clinic instead of a hospital doesn't eliminate a baby's right to 
medical care.
  Like the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act should be a no-brainer. This 
legislation would ban abortions beginning in the sixth month of 
pregnancy, a point at which science has clearly demonstrated that the 
unborn child is able to feel pain--and not only able to feel pain. By 
this point in a pregnancy, approximately 20 weeks, babies are almost 
able to survive outside of their mothers. Babies have survived after 
being born at 25 weeks, at 24 weeks, at 23 weeks, and, like Ellie 
Schneider, who attended the State of the Union Address with her mom, at 
21 weeks.

[[Page S1128]]

  It is unthinkable that we are killing babies who are so far advanced 
that it is possible for them to survive outside of their mothers, but 
we are. In 2016, somewhere around 11,000 babies were aborted at or 
after the 21-week mark in pregnancy--11,000 in one year.
  Democrats like to point to European countries to support their push 
for government-run healthcare and other socialist policies, but they 
never mention--they never mention--that almost every European country 
has more limits on abortion than we have here in the United States. In 
fact, the United States is one of just seven countries in the entire 
world that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Among 
the other countries are China and North Korea--not exactly the kind of 
company we want to be in when it comes to keeping and protecting human 
rights because--make no mistake--that is what we are talking about with 
abortion: human rights.
  Abortion denies unique, individual human beings, with their own 
fingerprints and their own DNA, the most basic of human rights: the 
right to life. It is happening on a massive scale. Every year, in the 
United States alone, hundreds of thousands of irreplaceable human 
beings are killed by abortion. That is not some number that the pro-
life movement has cooked up. That is straight. That is straight from 
the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, formerly affiliated with Planned 
Parenthood, which reports, ``Approximately 862,320 abortions were 
performed in 2017''--862,320. Most of us can't even fathom a number 
that big.
  To put it in perspective, 862,000 is roughly equivalent to the 
population of the entire State of South Dakota, my home State. That is 
right. Think about that. In 2017 alone, the number of babies killed by 
abortion was roughly equivalent to the population of the entire State 
of South Dakota.
  We can do better. Americans are better than this. Our country was 
founded to safeguard human rights, not to take them away. While we 
haven't always lived up to that promise, we have never stopped trying. 
It is time for us, as a country, to stand up and to start protecting 
the rights of unborn human beings. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors 
Protection Act and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will 
not stop all, or even most, abortions, but they are an important step, 
a chance for us, as Americans, to draw a line in the sand and to start 
standing up for the rights of babies who are able or nearly able to 
survive outside of their mothers. It is time for us to join the vast 
majority of the global community in prohibiting elective abortions past 
20 weeks. It is time for us to make it clear that, no matter what some 
extreme Democrats may say, Americans believe that all children, whether 
born alive in a hospital or in an abortion clinic, deserve protection 
and basic medical care.
  I hope my colleagues across the aisle will take a stand for human 
rights and for human decency and allow debate to move forward on these 
two important pro-life bills.
  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.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Molloy Nomination

  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Molloy 
nomination?
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that 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 (Mr. Cruz). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     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
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Loeffler
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     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--3

     Klobuchar
     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.

                          ____________________